A Word to Kinists

Kinism has recently impacted the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA), and we are not alone. Subtle and not-so-subtle forms of this evil are finding expression in Reformed and evangelical churches. We must be aware of it and not tolerate it.

What is Kinism? According to Drew Poplin’s very helpful 56-page book, The Canvas of Creation, it is “the belief that races should not intermix, but remain in their allotted boundaries set up by God” (Crown & Covenant, 2025). The underlying problem with Kinism, according to Poplin, if not obvious already, is racial superiority or what is being called Race Realism. In light of recent history, it might be helpful to look at Acts 16:1–5 because it urges us to love one another. Take a minute to get your Bible and follow along.

The Church is a Mixed Multitude

Paul and Barnabas were making plans to set out on their second missionary journey when a sharp disagreement hampered their progress (Acts 15:36–41). The disagreement arose over John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas. Barnabas wanted to take John Mark on this second trip. However, Paul thought it best to leave him behind. As a result, Barnabas took John Mark and Paul took Silas, and they parted ways. The book’s author, Luke, helps us to see that the church sided with Paul, for when he departed he was “commended by the brothers” (Acts 15:41).

Early on in their journey, Paul and Silas picked up a new protégé, Timothy, who was the product of an interracial marriage. His mother was a Jew and his father a Gentile. Yet, his reputation within the church is foregrounded. Timothy was “well spoken of” by the brothers. Put another way, Paul and the brothers did not rebuke Timothy’s mother for spoiling the bloodlines or mixing the races. Timothy was recognized as a godly and useful brother. The church loved him.

Wrong to Intermarry?

Where does the Kinist obtain the idea of forbidding intermarriage? In other words, why shouldn’t races intermarry? The Kinist offers Titus 1:12, “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’” Thus, claims the Kinist, some races have ingrained genetic vices producing unalterable characteristics. Conversely, some races have less destructive vices and so are better than others. Consequently, to intermarry would obviously dilute and pollute better bloodlines.

But think again of the Titus quote. In the next verse, Paul says, “Rebuke them sharply.” Why? So that, says the apostle, “[they] may be sound in the faith.” In other words, genetic isolation is not what the Cretans need. They need a gospel and its accompanying admonitions so that their character might be conformed to Christ. Brothers and sisters, the gospel may not make you able to jump higher or lift heavier weights, but it can and will sanctify your character, conforming you to the image of Christ; and to believe differently is serious error. It’s part of the Kinist heresy.

Race Realism Error

Kinism, and by extension Race Realism, fails to understand something vital. Genetics are not the source of blessing. The gospel is the source of blessing. Samuel Ketcham illustrates this error in a Substack article titled “Race and Nature,” stating, “When the white man took the true religion around the world, the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual. But to deny that their superior culture, language, and race had anything to do with it—is foolish.” In this statement, Mr. Ketcham has undermined the Reformed gospel.

For example, he has obviously confused means and merit. Reformed theology readily affirms that God uses means (language, education, printing presses, roads, political stability). But Ketcham’s statement goes beyond means and speaks of “superior culture, language, and race” as contributing causes. Second, Ketcham reintroduces grounds for boasting—not in Christ, but in one race’s superiority to that of another. And third, to argue the gospel succeeded because of racial or cultural superiority implicitly denies that the gospel is equally at home in every culture, a point upon which Scripture insists (e.g. Col. 1:23).

But why does it always come down to skin color for the Kinist? Why not eye color, birth hospital, or shoe size? Perhaps another question. Why does Kinism seem to fixate on Blacks and Jews? The likeliest answer is that Race Realism is really race hatred masquerading as love for those who are actually despised.

The church is composed of a multitude drawn from every tribe, language, and nation—all of whom stand equally in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, the Kinist will readily affirm this point in word. He will say that the gospel is for all people without distinction. But this verbal concession collapses under the weight of his own system.

For if, as Kinism maintains, certain races are marked by enduring genetic deficiencies—moral or cultural traits that the gospel does not fully overcome—then the universality of the gospel is not truly believed but merely stated. In such a framework, the gospel may be offered to all, but it is not equally powerful for all. It becomes, in effect, a partial remedy—sufficient for some peoples but inherently limited in its transforming ability among others.

This is not a small inconsistency. It strikes at the very heart of the gospel. The New Testament proclaims a Christ who breaks down dividing walls, who creates one new man in place of the old divisions, and who renews fallen sinners without regard to ethnicity or lineage. But Kinism reintroduces those very barriers under the guise of “nature,” suggesting that grace is bounded by blood.

Circumcision Identified the Multitude (Not Skin Color)

Knowing that Timothy’s uncircumcised condition would likely raise the hackles of the Jews, Paul and Silas had him circumcised because they loved the Jews they were trying to win to Christ. But it is important to ask how circumcision, the sign and seal of the old covenant, can be applied to a new covenant believer. The answer is relatively simple. The Old Testament sign of circumcision and the New Testament sign of baptism point to one and the same object: Christ.

There are a number of ways this assertion might be supported. For instance, Colossians 2:11–12 describes the death of Christ in terms of His circumcision, while His burial is situated under the imagery of baptism. Paul also told the Philippians (Phil. 3:3) that those who had faith in Christ were the true circumcision. How so? They actually believed in the one to whom circumcision pointed. What is more, the same apostle told the Galatians that those who were baptized were children of Abraham (Gal. 3:26–29). How so? Because even though they did not share Abraham’s genetics, they shared his faith.

The point is unmistakable. In his ministry to the Jews, Timothy—already baptized and therefore under no obligation to receive circumcision—willingly took upon himself that sign in order to lead those still living in the shadows into the light of Christ. This was not theological compromise, but strategic love. And it is precisely here that the irony presses in: Timothy’s voluntary submission to such a painful and unnecessary rite was an act of charity toward a community deeply entangled in ethnic pride.

Put plainly, the man of mixed heritage humbled himself for the sake of those who prized ethnic purity. The so-called “interracial” man did not recoil from racial exclusivists; he moved toward them in costly love, seeking not to preserve boundaries, but to bring them into the fullness of the gospel.

Decrees Guide the Multitude

After circumcising Timothy, the team went on their way delivering the observances of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 16:4; cf. Acts 15). As Presbyterians, it’s not surprising to us that the ruling of synod was spread among the churches. And this ruling was exceedingly important. The church court that had met at Jerusalem had ruled that justification was by faith alone. The circumcision party had argued otherwise, and the court said that they were in error.

But the real question for us is, why the additions in Acts 15:19–21? If justification is by faith alone, then why issue a statement telling the Gentiles to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals, and from blood? Some of these seem obvious to a believer and others suggest that the court may have had second thoughts.

Perhaps the answer rests in love for neighbor. In other words, perhaps the court that met in Jerusalem was sending a message to the Gentiles that went something like this: “Our brother Paul has been teaching you faithfully. We concur with his understanding that the justification of the sinner is by faith alone and nothing else—not circumcision or law keeping. However, many of your Jewish brothers are struggling. They have been taught poorly for a long time and they need your help. We know and you certainly know that we are no worse off if we eat meat that was sacrificed to idols. Food does not commend us to God (1 Cor. 8:8). But to help your weaker Jewish brothers, please abstain from these things.”

Some of you will ask the obvious question. How can sexual immorality fall into that category? That is a great question. If this understanding is correct, the court is not referring to obvious moral infractions but ceremonial ones, such as menstruation (Lev. 15:19–30), childbirth (Lev. 12:1-5), and emissions (Lev. 15:16-18). To draw a parallel, consider the historical laws of affinity. It was once widely held (and still is in some circles) that if a man’s wife died, he could not lawfully marry her sister; to do so would be considered a form of sexual immorality. Thus, the sexual immorality in view is not that of adultery, fornication, bestiality, and the like. It is ceremonial.

Thus, they were simply asking their Gentile brothers to consider what might cause their Jewish brothers to stumble and so to help them. In other words, the stronger brother is to walk alongside the weaker brother, which is exactly what Paul sought to do by circumcising Timothy. Paul could have said, “The court said no to circumcision!” But instead, he loved these brothers struggling to emerge from the shadows.

The Mixed Multitude is Strengthened by Christ

Acts 16:5 reports the result: “So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily.” When the stronger brother helps the weaker brother, the church is strengthened. But notice the expression “strengthened in the faith.” It is what is called a dative of sphere, and the translator often uses the key word “respect” to translate these expressions. The result would be “the churches were strengthened with respect to the faith.” In other words, the churches were being strengthened with respect to their grasp of and commitment to the Christian faith.

There is a vital lesson here for us. When the church fixes its gaze on Christ—even in a case like Timothy’s circumcision, which served to set Christ before those still living in the shadows—the result is strengthening, unity, and growth. But when the church turns its attention to skin color or ethnic distinctions, it shifts from Christ-centeredness to man-centeredness, and, in doing so, it becomes weak.

This is not a small or secondary matter. If left unchecked, such a focus does not merely distract—it can eclipse the gospel itself. And where the gospel is eclipsed, love will not long remain. Brothers and sisters, we must guard against anything that would displace Christ at the center. Let us be vigilant, then, to keep our eyes fixed on Him alone, for only there do we find the power that builds up the church and binds us together in true gospel love.

This article appears: https://rpwitness.org/article/a-word-to-kinists