Ben Dunson’s recent “A Critique of Kinism” deserves a careful response because it avoids one of the easiest ways of conducting this controversy. Dunson rejects Kinism and several positions commonly associated with it, sometimes sharply. Yet his alternative is not a Christianity in which nationality, inherited culture, political membership, natural affection, or the ordinary desire of a people for continuity have become morally unintelligible. The catholicity of the church does not, in his account, dictate an open-borders immigration policy. Nations retain meaningful authority over admission. Citizens and foreigners need not possess identical claims to every political good. A congregation does not become unfaithful merely because its membership reflects a particular local population. A nation may preserve what is genuinely good in its inherited culture without claiming racial purity as a divine mandate.¹
Those qualifications move the controversy toward its actual theological center. The most useful question is not whether human particularity exists. Nearly everyone in the debate eventually concedes some form of it. Nor is the question simply whether “partiality” is permissible, since Christian moral reasoning plainly condemns some preferences while commanding others. The deeper question is what kind of authority a particular relation possesses, over which goods, within which institutions, and under what law. Once the issue is framed that way, both Kinism and many criticisms of Kinism appear less like complete moral systems and more like competing attempts to answer questions that require a much larger Christian grammar.
Dunson’s opening helps reveal the difficulty because he takes up Michael Spangler’s proposal to “name, praise, and protect racial distinctions” as a representative contemporary formulation of Christian race realism.² Yet that formulation already contains three different kinds of claim. To name a distinction is descriptive: something exists and can be identified. To praise it is evaluative: the thing is not merely real but good in some relevant respect. To protect it is normative and potentially juridical: some person, community, or institution should act so that the good is maintained against forces threatening it.
Evidence sufficient for the first proposition does not by itself establish the second, and neither automatically determines who possesses authority to carry out the third. One can establish that some human difference is real without yet establishing that the difference is morally good in every respect. One can establish that some inherited good deserves gratitude without yet establishing that a magistrate should coercively preserve it. One can establish that a form of social continuity is prudentially desirable without yet establishing that a church may make it a term of communion or that a marriage falling outside it is unlawful. Much of the controversy arises precisely because description, evaluation, prudence, and jurisdiction are permitted to slide into one another.
That is why I have become increasingly persuaded that Kinism is best understood historically as a modern retrieval movement. Prominent Kinist writers have repeatedly presented their project as recovery rather than invention. They have argued that modern Christianity forgot or suppressed truths earlier Christians understood more readily: that human beings receive rather than construct many of their most important relations; that family and ancestry are not morally meaningless; that peoples possess histories and inheritances; that nations are more than temporary administrative containers for autonomous individuals; that natural affection ordinarily directs care toward those especially entrusted to us; and that universal Christian charity does not entail the identical distribution of every good to every person.³
That retrieval contains genuine insights, but it also contains real errors, and those errors are not all marginal. Some are recurrent stronger forms of the movement, while still more severe formulations appear at its maximal edges. A fair response should therefore neither identify the whole movement with its strongest representatives nor redescribe every serious difficulty as an irrelevant outlier. The proper task is more exacting: identify what the movement broadly retrieved, distinguish the stronger conclusions particular writers drew, determine where those conclusions exceed their premises, and then ask whether the truths being recovered can be stated more faithfully without preserving the modern synthesis that gathered them under the name Kinism.
My conclusion is therefore neither that Kinism should simply be vindicated nor that everything associated with it should be discarded. If Kinism is genuinely a retrieval movement, its highest success would be to make itself unnecessary. Its recovered goods should survive; its mistaken extensions should not. What is true should be returned to its proper theological location in doctrines of creation, providence, household, peoplehood, vocation, political association, justice, church catholicity, prudence, and ordered love. The proposal of this essay is straightforward: keep the retrieval, accept the corrections, relinquish the label, and return more deeply to Reformed orthodoxy.
Dunson and the False Choice
One reason Dunson’s critique provides a particularly useful occasion for that argument is that he already refuses several conclusions that often make anti-Kinist criticism unpersuasive to the people most likely to be attracted to Kinism. He does not infer from the spiritual unity of Christians that nationality becomes meaningless. He does not make ecclesial catholicity a blueprint for civil membership. He does not equate restrictive immigration policy with racial hatred. He does not argue that a congregation must intentionally manufacture demographic diversity in order to display the gospel. He can maintain that interracial marriage is morally lawful while allowing that people may possess natural or cultural preferences concerning whom they marry. And he can condemn racial partiality in justice while maintaining that governments possess broad discretion to distinguish citizens from foreigners and regulate admission. Indeed, he allows nations to admit and grant citizenship to “however many or few they desire.”⁴
That constellation of judgments deserves more attention than it usually receives. If nations may preserve culture, governments may restrict admission, citizens may receive goods not owed identically to outsiders, churches may ordinarily reflect local populations, and marital preference is not intrinsically sinful, then the Christian alternative to Kinism cannot simply be that all distinctions are irrelevant. Dunson himself does not believe that. The question becomes why these distinctions are legitimate and what limits them.
Some criticisms of Kinism have difficulty answering that question because they begin from an anthropology thinner than the Christian tradition warrants. Human beings are treated principally as individual bearers of universal dignity who subsequently enter voluntary relationships. On such an account, family, lineage, locality, historical peoplehood, political membership, and inherited culture can easily appear as morally secondary complications added to a more fundamental equality.
The language of equal dignity is true, but it is asked to perform conceptual work it cannot perform by itself. Equal human dignity explains why I may not murder an unknown foreigner. It does not by itself explain why I owe daily provision to my dependent child rather than to every child in the world, why a pastor has special obligations to a definite flock, why a citizen bears burdens toward one commonwealth that he does not bear toward every state, or why the same form of preference can be virtuous in one office and corrupt in another.
Christian anthropology begins from a more concrete creatureliness. We are born before we choose. We receive parents, bodies, languages, places, histories, institutions, debts, benefits, and vulnerabilities before we are capable of consenting to them. Some received relations can later be altered; some cannot. Some inherited institutions deserve preservation; others require reform or abolition. Providence is not equivalent to moral approval. Nevertheless, the unchosen character of these relations does not make them fictitious. Creation and providence give the moral agent a world already populated by real neighbors, dependencies, authorities, memberships, promises, and histories.
Christian universalism has therefore never required the erasure of every particular relation. The command to love the neighbor expands moral concern beyond kin and friend, but it does not abolish parenthood. The unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ does not create a worldwide civil state. The universal church contains many languages, regions, congregations, and national histories without ceasing to be one church. Political authorities owe justice to persons who are not citizens without thereby becoming magistrates of the entire human race.
Dunson is thus right to reject the false choice between Kinism and a deracinated cosmopolitanism. But his own concessions make the positive question unavoidable: what kind of Christian moral order permits genuine particularity while preventing particularity from becoming caste, injustice, or an alternative gospel? The prohibition of partiality alone cannot answer that question. We need an account of what kinds of relations exist, what goods they mediate, what duties they generate, which institutions administer those goods, and how all of them remain subordinate to the common moral law of God. We need, in other words, an order of love.
Kinism at Its Strongest
A responsible criticism of Kinism should begin with the strongest account of what the movement has actually tried to recover. That requires more than quoting whichever contemporary spokesman happens to make the most provocative statement. Kinism has a recoverable history, institutional outlets, competing taxonomies, recurring arguments, practical applications, and internal disputes. Its advocates do not all mean exactly the same thing by race, ethnicity, nation, people, kinship, or separation. The movement is not a confession with an authoritative doctrinal standard, but neither is it merely a random collection of people who happen to use the same label.
Davis Carlton’s 2011 “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism” illustrates one influential form of the argument. Carlton opposes what he calls the “proposition nation,” an account in which national identity rests primarily upon shared political commitments or ideas. He instead presents nationhood as historically emerging from families, tribes, and peoples and describes nations through a combination of common heredity, ancestry, language, culture, religion, and social custom.⁵ His account is not simply a proposition about visible phenotype. It is a claim that political and historical identity is embodied, inherited, and transmitted rather than created solely by present consent.
Indeed, Carlton’s own argument is stronger than the minimal thesis that ancestry merely “matters.” His concern is ethnonational in a robust sense: political peoplehood has a genealogical dimension, natural kinship bears upon rule and solidarity, and a nation cannot be reduced to voluntary agreement around abstract propositions. The point is important because a serious steelman should not make Kinism artificially moderate merely in order to render it defensible. It should identify what is genuinely substantial in the movement without concealing where that substance itself raises difficult questions.
Thorin Reynolds’s 2013 “What Is Kinism?” makes the breadth of the movement still clearer. Reynolds treats Kinism as an account of covenantal succession, inheritance, race, culture, family, political order, atomistic individualism, hierarchy, multiculturalism, missionary obligation, adoption, marriage, and the limits of responsibility.⁶ Whatever one thinks of his individual conclusions, it is difficult to read the essay and conclude that Kinism is fundamentally nothing more than a prohibition on interracial marriage. It is an effort to reconstruct a social ontology: what kinds of human communities are natural or providential, what responsibilities follow from them, how far those obligations extend, and how Christian universality relates to inherited differentiation.
The movement’s own internal classifications reinforce this point. Faith & Heritage’s FAQ distinguishes “weak” Kinists, who regard interracial marriage as ordinarily imprudent, from “strong” Kinists, who regard it as morally sinful, and from a still stronger position concerning the status of existing interracial unions. The FAQ explicitly describes at least part of the disagreement as an argument “within the camp.”⁷ This does not mean every proposed level is equally common or that the categories remained static. Carlton later argued that the practical distance between weak and strong positions had substantially narrowed. But the existence of these categories demonstrates that one contested application cannot simply be made the definition of the entire movement.
A useful taxonomy therefore distinguishes three levels. At the broadest level are recurrent movement-level instincts: natural relations are morally significant; peoples and nations are historical realities; ancestry is not morally nothing; inherited goods can generate gratitude and responsibility; nations may legitimately seek continuity; and universal Christian charity does not abolish differentiated duties. These are recurrent tendencies within the movement, not propositions to which every self-identified Kinist has subscribed in identical language or with identical implications.
At a stronger level are recurring conclusions concerning racial endogamy, restrictions upon political incorporation, inherited leadership, population differences, ethnically ordered institutions, or the relation between ancestry and local ecclesial organization. At a maximal level are claims that raise a disputed modern synthesis toward confessional necessity, make strong empirical generalizations do the work of individual judgment, or treat rejection of Kinism as evidence of fundamental Christian infidelity. Bret McAtee’s description of Kinism as a “central plank” of Christian faith belongs at this stronger confessional edge.⁸
This taxonomy prevents two opposite errors. One is polemical compression: quote a maximal writer and announce that every Kinist necessarily believes everything he says. The other is apologetic dissolution: whenever a serious problem is demonstrated, classify it as merely an eccentric abuse unrelated to the movement. Neither approach takes the corpus seriously.
The more responsible method is proposition by proposition. Who says this? How frequently does it recur? Is it institutional or idiosyncratic? What level of theological authority is claimed for it? In which moral or institutional domain is it meant to operate? What consequence is supposed to follow?
Carlton’s own retrospective is revealing. In 2017 he treated the ethnonational question as considerably more foundational than the controversy over Rahab and interracial marriage.⁹ That matters for assessing Dunson’s historical framing. To the extent that Dunson suggests an older Kinism principally concerned with marriage and church while national questions characterize a newer phase, the public record does not sustain so simple a development. By 2011 at the latest, ethnonationalism and the nature of the nation were already being presented as foundational concerns, and by 2013 Reynolds was integrating those concerns into a much wider theory of Christian social order.¹⁰ More recent race-realist arguments may alter the vocabulary, sharpen biological claims, or change the center of emphasis, but they did not import political nationhood into an originally matrimonial movement.
The strongest steelman of Kinism, then, is not merely that different races should remain separate. It is something more intellectually substantial. Human beings are historically and bodily situated creatures. Natural generation matters. Peoples do not arise from bare contracts. Nations often possess inherited continuity through descent, memory, language, religion, territory, custom, and institutions. Love is finite and therefore administered through particular relations rather than through an abstract benevolence directed toward mankind as an undifferentiated whole. The family is not simply one voluntary association among others, and a nation is not necessarily reducible to a set of propositions. Christianity perfects natural relations rather than abolishing them.
Several of these claims belong much more naturally to historic Christian moral and political theology than to modern liberal individualism. That is precisely why a serious critique should concede them before asking what does and does not follow.
What the Retrieval Saw Clearly
The most important Kinist intuition is that equality of human nature does not entail interchangeability of human relations. A stranger and my child are equally human; they are not therefore equally related to me. If my child depends upon me for food, shelter, education, correction, and protection, those claims do not arise because I have calculated that the child possesses greater intrinsic worth or that my resources produce the greatest aggregate benefit when spent upon him. They arise from generation, dependence, household, vocation, and the divine law governing parenthood.
To prefer my child in the ordinary distribution of household goods is therefore not to say that another child is less human. The mistake comes when equal dignity and differentiated claim are treated as opposites. Modern discourse often assumes that if two persons possess equal dignity, any difference in treatment requires an exceptional justification. Older moral reasoning begins instead with the fact that different relations already generate different titles. Husband and wife, parent and child, pastor and congregant, magistrate and subject, creditor and debtor, citizen and stranger, benefactor and beneficiary do not stand in identical relations even when all stand beneath the same moral law.
Kinist protest against atomistic individualism is strongest at this point. Human beings inherit goods they did not produce. A language may have been handed down through generations. A political constitution may embody centuries of sacrifice and accumulated prudence. A church may preserve confessional and liturgical goods received through particular historical communities. A landscape may become invested with burial, memory, labor, worship, and familial association. Gratitude toward inherited goods is not automatically idolatry, and the desire to transmit them is not automatically injustice.
National continuity can therefore be a genuine good without becoming an ultimate good. A people need not believe itself metaphysically superior in order to prefer that its language survive, that its inherited institutions continue, that its children learn its history, or that public policy consider the effects of demographic change upon social continuity. Critics who describe every such concern as merely racial anxiety make the Kinist counterargument stronger than it needs to be, because they force legitimate questions of inheritance and political prudence into a movement vocabulary that is then presented as the only available language in which to discuss them.
The same is true of differentiated obligation. Christian charity is universal in scope but finite in administration. No creature can render every possible good to every person. Duties therefore reach us through relations, circumstances, opportunities, promises, offices, and institutions. The father has dependents, the pastor has a flock, the magistrate has a commonwealth, the friend has made or received forms of trust, and the creditor and debtor possess defined claims. The neighbor becomes especially near through proximity, while the wounded stranger can become the immediate object of obligation because need and opportunity converge.
An abstract command to “treat everyone equally” is consequently inadequate until the relevant respect of equality has been identified. Equality before the prohibition of murder does not create equal entitlement to my inheritance. Equality before a lawful court does not create a right to political office in every commonwealth. Equal access to Christ through the gospel does not make every pastor equally responsible for every congregation on earth. Equal human dignity is a fundamental moral limit, but it does not erase the differentiated relations through which finite creatures ordinarily discharge their duties.
Kinists are right that Christian universalism cannot be allowed to dissolve this differentiated moral world. But the moment that conclusion is reached, a further problem appears. If relations create differentiated obligations, which relation governs which good? Kinship is real, but so are covenant, office, need, promise, proximity, citizenship, ecclesial membership, gratitude, domicile, and legal status. Their claims can overlap, reinforce one another, or conflict. The existence of differentiated duty therefore does not establish that ancestry is the master relation through which all other duties should be ordered.
That is the point at which retrieval requires correction.
When Retrieval Becomes Jurisdictional Inflation
The most useful way to identify the stronger Kinist error is not to say that Kinism takes natural relations seriously. Historic Christianity takes them seriously. The error arises when one genuine relation is assigned authority over a good that belongs to another relation, institution, or office. I have called this jurisdictional inflation: the movement from “this relation is morally real” to “this relation therefore possesses authority to decide this other question.”
A relation may generate a genuine interest without conferring unlimited competence. Parenthood gives parents authority over the nurture and discipline of their children. It does not give parents authority to administer the Lord’s Supper. Political office gives magistrates authority over public justice and civil order. It does not give magistrates power to create saving faith. Ecclesiastical office gives ministers and church courts real authority over Word, sacrament, discipline, and ecclesial order. It does not make them owners of the household estate or of civil jurisdiction as such.
The same principle applies to ancestry. Ancestry can ground gratitude, memory, solidarity, inheritance, affection, and legitimate concern for cultural continuity. But the reality of those goods does not itself tell us what ancestry can establish in matrimonial law, sacramental admission, judicial procedure, political incorporation, or Christian confession.
The mistake occurs when description silently becomes jurisdiction. A population-level observation becomes a verdict about a particular individual. A prudential preference becomes an intrinsic matrimonial prohibition. A legitimate concern for national continuity becomes the permanent civil incapacity of every outsider and his descendants. A historically particular congregation becomes a church in which ancestry regulates access to Christ’s ordinances. An interpretive synthesis becomes a new test of Christian orthodoxy.
At each transition the proposition has changed its kind, and the burden of proof must change with it. Advice requires less proof than coercion. A prospective immigration judgment requires a different kind of evidence from a finding of criminal guilt. A claim that a marriage may encounter serious cultural difficulty is much weaker than a claim that God forbids the union. A preference for locally coherent congregations is categorically different from ancestry functioning as a sacramental disability. A belief that aggregate population differences can inform prudence is different from claiming that ancestry establishes the intellectual, moral, or spiritual incapacity of the person standing before you.
The method can be stated as a five-question test applicable across the controversy. What good is being protected? What relation creates the asserted obligation? Which person or office is acting? What evidence establishes the relevant fact? What consequence is that evidence being asked to authorize?
A claim can fail at any transition. A real good does not imply that every relation possesses authority over it. A real relation does not imply competence within every institution. Evidence adequate for prudential counsel may be inadequate for prohibition or coercion. Evidence sufficient for a population-level description may be insufficient for judgment of a particular person. The stronger and more permanent the proposed disability, exclusion, or penalty, the stronger the warrant must be.
This fivefold test allows the debate to move beyond the vague question whether ancestry “matters.” It plainly can. The harder and more important question is what consequence the relevant good, relation, office, evidence, and law are competent to establish. That distinction provides a more exact way of receiving Dunson’s strongest criticisms.
Where Dunson’s Critique Succeeds
Marriage: Prudence Is Not Impediment
Kinists are right to resist the idea that marriage is socially abstract. A marriage joins particular persons and normally establishes relations between households. Religion, language, family expectations, social environment, location, inherited customs, temperament, economic expectations, and cultural compatibility can all bear upon prudential marital judgment. Christian parents need not pretend that every lawful marriage is therefore equally wise, equally easy, or equally desirable under every circumstance.
None of that establishes ancestry as an intrinsic impediment to an otherwise lawful Christian marriage. A Christian parent may give prudential counsel concerning difficulties likely to attend a proposed marriage. A prospective spouse may prefer someone who shares a language, history, culture, or national background. Such judgments can be wise or foolish, charitable or prejudiced, depending upon their object, evidence, and circumstances. But a prudential consideration does not become divine positive law merely because it concerns a real natural good.
Here Dunson’s principal criticism succeeds. Where strong Kinist argument moves from the reality of ancestry, peoplehood, or the ordinary advantages of endogamy to the proposition that ancestry itself makes an otherwise Christian marriage morally forbidden, the conclusion exceeds the premise.
I would nevertheless qualify the way Dunson employs Paul’s instruction to marry “in the Lord.” First Corinthians 7:39 correctly supplies a fundamental New Testament boundary, but Dunson goes further and describes this as the New Testament’s “only restriction.” Historic Reformed marriage doctrine also recognizes prohibited degrees and other conditions affecting lawful marriage; Westminster Confession 24 places marriage “in the Lord” alongside the separate restrictions of consanguinity and affinity.¹¹ Dunson does not need the exhaustive formulation. His relevant conclusion is narrower and more secure: racial or ethnic ancestry is not in itself an intrinsic impediment to a lawful Christian marriage.
That formulation preserves necessary room for prudence. Parents can counsel, individuals can prefer, and churches can warn against foolish or badly considered matches without inventing a divine prohibition where Scripture and the moral structure of marriage do not supply one. The distinction between prudence and impediment is sufficient to preserve both lawful particularity and Christian liberty.
The Church: Particular Administration, Catholic Constitution
The ecclesial question is even sharper because church goods have explicitly appointed terms of administration. Christians do not cease to belong to families, languages, historical peoples, or political communities upon baptism. Grace does not erase creaturely history. Congregations therefore arise in particular places, preach in particular languages, inherit particular liturgies, and often reflect the demographic histories of the communities among which they exist. A congregation may be overwhelmingly Korean, Dutch, Nigerian, Mexican, English, or American without thereby denying the catholic church. A national church is not a theological contradiction.
Dunson is therefore right to resist the notion that demographic diversity is itself an ecclesiastical mark. The Reformed confessions define the catholic visible church through profession, Word, sacrament, discipline, worship, and union in Christ; when they assess the purity or marks of particular churches, their criteria are doctrinal, sacramental, disciplinary, and liturgical rather than demographic.¹² Catholicity does not require every local congregation to become a miniature demographic sample of humanity. The New Testament’s unity is neither a statistical formula nor an administrative command that every possible form of natural difference be proportionally represented within every local assembly.
Yet catholicity does establish something real. The church administers goods whose constitutive terms are not created by ancestry. The gospel is preached according to Christ’s commission. Baptism has appointed objects. The Lord’s Supper has appointed qualifications. Discipline concerns doctrine, life, profession, scandal, repentance, and lawful ecclesial judgment. Ministerial office possesses qualifications of its own.
The decisive distinction is therefore between a church among a people and a church whose terms of communion are determined by ancestry.
That distinction matters because the Kinist corpus itself is more diverse here than a simple charge of “racial church” suggests. Davis Carlton, for example, explicitly says that all races can be saved and that entrance into the visible church does not require a particular racial lineage. He nevertheless later argues that ethnic and racial homogeneity is ordinarily healthy for local congregations and rejects the proposition that Christians of different races must ordinarily worship in integrated churches.¹³ These are strong ecclesiological judgments, but they are not identical to the assertion that a believer of another ancestry may not enter the visible church or receive its ordinances.
Other Kinist writers move further, connecting ethnic conclusions more closely to sanctification, orthodoxy, confessional faithfulness, or the proper constitution of Christian institutions. A serious assessment must preserve those differences rather than flatten them. The question is not whether a congregation may organize around language, location, pastoral competence, neighborhood, or historical community. These can be entirely legitimate circumstances of ministry. Pentecost itself does not abolish linguistic plurality; it makes one gospel intelligible across languages. The question is whether ancestry becomes an independent qualification for baptism, communion, discipline, or office.
Here the jurisdictional test is decisive. Language can determine whether preaching is intelligible. Geography can help determine which court possesses ordinary jurisdiction. Character and calling bear upon office. Profession and covenantal standing bear upon ecclesial reception. Scandal bears upon discipline. Ancestry, by itself, has not been entrusted with sacramental competence.
This permits a church to be locally, linguistically, or nationally particular while remaining catholic in constitution. Catholicity concerns the terms by which Christ gathers and governs his people, not the requirement that every congregation embody a predetermined demographic ratio.
Public Justice: Preference and Office
Dunson’s appeal to the biblical prohibition of partiality is likewise substantially correct, but it requires a distinction his essay does not fully develop. Partiality is especially corrupt when private affection displaces the rule proper to a public office. A judge who acquits his brother because he is his brother violates justice. The same man may be obligated to give special assistance to that brother while acting privately under a genuine family obligation. Kinship exists in both cases. What changes is the governing office and the good being administered.
Without that distinction, partiality becomes too broad a category. A parent who feeds dependent children before distributing the household’s resources to strangers is partial in one ordinary sense of the word, but he is not thereby unjust. A pastor who devotes more ministerial labor to the flock entrusted to him than to believers across the world is exercising a particular vocation rather than denying the catholic church. A ruler who devotes public administration to the commonwealth entrusted to his office is not declaring foreigners less human.
Public justice and differentiated political membership can therefore coexist. A commonwealth may distinguish citizens from noncitizens in properly political goods such as office, participation, admission, public burdens, and other incidents of civic status while remaining obligated to render ordinary justice to persons within its jurisdiction. The Reformed confession supplies the public-good character of magistracy, while early-modern political sources explicitly distinguish subjecthood, domicile, citizenship, and admission.¹⁴
This makes Dunson’s own position coherent. Nations may prioritize citizens and regulate immigration while remaining forbidden to make ancestry a license for arbitrary injustice. The distinction is not between “partiality” and “equality” in the abstract. It is between goods administered under different titles and offices.
Where Dunson’s Critique Needs Further Qualification
One Contemporary Formulation Cannot Define the Whole Movement
Dunson relies heavily upon Michael Spangler’s recent Christian race-realism series. Spangler is an important contemporary interlocutor and should not be dismissed as irrelevant to Kinism. He defines race realism through substantial and relatively persistent racial distinctions and moves from that description toward arguments concerning their recognition and preservation. In his final installment he explicitly says that he personally prefers the label race realist while accepting Kinist because his disagreements with those preferring the latter designation are comparatively small.¹⁵
That makes him a legitimate witness to a contemporary form of the movement. It does not make his formulation a complete historical definition of Kinism.
The distinction matters because movements have histories. Kinism possesses earlier institutional statements, websites, FAQs, essays, books, sermons, podcasts, controversies, and competing taxonomies. A source-critical response should therefore make the target as precise as the criticism. If Spangler claims something, attribute it to Spangler. If Faith & Heritage establishes an institutional taxonomy, cite that. If Carlton argues that ethnonationalism is foundational, address his proposition. If McAtee raises Kinism toward confessional necessity, identify the stronger theological burden of that assertion.
This is not a method for avoiding judgment. It is the condition for judging accurately. The remedy for movement ambiguity is proposition-level analysis: identify the source, the claim, its claimed authority, its prevalence, and its intended application.
Race, Population, Ethnicity, Peoplehood, and Nation
Dunson is also right to question the stability of modern racial categories. Biblical terms for nations, peoples, tribes, kindreds, languages, and generations do not map neatly onto every modern racial taxonomy. Kinist writers themselves sometimes move among race, ethnicity, nation, people, kin, and culture more rapidly than their arguments warrant. A theological critique should therefore resist making a modern classificatory system more permanent or exact than the evidence permits.
For purposes of the present argument, it is useful to distinguish several overlapping categories without pretending that these definitions exhaust every anthropological or sociological use of the terms. Population can refer to a group in which patterns of descent and measurable traits can be studied. Race, in much modern usage, attempts to classify some such patterns into broader biological groupings. Ethnicity ordinarily includes inherited culture, history, practices, and self-identification alongside descent. Peoplehood names a thicker historical community sustained through some combination of generation, language, religion, place, memory, custom, law, and association. Nationhood adds a developed sense of corporate historical identity and often, though not invariably, a political dimension.
These categories overlap without doing identical conceptual work. The instability of race as a universal taxonomy therefore does not entail the instability of peoplehood as a historical reality. A people can possess genealogical continuity without being reducible to genealogy. Language can be inherited and later acquired. Territory can deepen identity while not being indispensable to every diaspora. Religion can reshape a people without inventing all its natural relations. Law can communicate political membership more rapidly than historical assimilation occurs. Marriage can join families across previous boundaries. Institutions and common memory can preserve identity through extensive changes in individual membership.
This has consequences for both sides of the controversy. Critics do not need to deny ancestry or historical peoples merely because a particular modern racial taxonomy proves conceptually unstable. Kinists do not need to make one modern racial classification the indispensable foundation of arguments for nationhood. The weakness of race as a universal classificatory key does not entail the weakness of peoplehood as a historical reality. Conversely, the reality of population structure does not establish the moral authority of race over marriage, sacrament, justice, or citizenship.
The advantage of peoplehood is that it permits a cumulative rather than reductionist account. Descent may be foundational without being exhaustive. Language can preserve continuity after political loss and can also be acquired by newcomers. Territory can matter deeply without being the sole condition of identity. Religion, law, education, marriage, neighborhood, common service, shared dangers, and memory can deepen membership over time. The resulting community is neither a mere proposition nor a biological specimen.
That thicker category is much closer to what the biblical and early-modern materials require.
The Fall Does Not Establish Racial Hierarchy
Dunson’s treatment of the fall is substantially correct, though one sentence benefits from clarification. He argues that all human beings stand within the same fallen condition, under the same moral accountability, in need of the same salvation, and capable of receiving that salvation only through the same Christ. He therefore writes that no race is more morally, physically, intellectually, or spiritually damaged by the fall than another.¹⁶
Read in isolation, the references to physical and intellectual damage might sound as though Dunson were claiming that every human population must exhibit the same physical and cognitive characteristics. But that cannot be his meaning in context. Earlier in the essay he expressly acknowledges that human populations may share biological characteristics, gives susceptibility to sickle-cell anemia as one example, and discusses observed group differences in academic and IQ performance while distinguishing the empirical question of their cause from the theological question before him. His argument is therefore not that empirical differences between populations are impossible.
The stronger and more charitable reading is that empirical difference does not constitute a different degree of fallenness. One population may differ from another in some measurable characteristic without therefore possessing another human nature, bearing a greater share of Adamic guilt, standing beneath another moral law, or possessing a lesser capacity for salvation in Christ. Romans 3 establishes universal sin and accountability, not statistical sameness among human populations.
That formulation also makes the empirical question less threatening to Christian anthropology. Christianity does not need to predetermine what biology, medicine, psychology, or other empirical disciplines might discover about human populations. If some aggregate difference is real, it should be investigated according to the evidence appropriate to the subject. Conversely, no such finding could by itself establish another human nature, another degree of image-bearing dignity, another standard of moral accountability, or another gospel.
The practical question then becomes one of inference and jurisdiction. Suppose an aggregate difference between populations were securely demonstrated. What does that fact authorize a parent, pastor, magistrate, judge, or church court to conclude about the particular person before him? A population tendency does not by itself establish individual guilt, spiritual incapacity, matrimonial invalidity, sacramental rank, or legal culpability. An aggregate description and an institutional judgment are different intellectual acts.
This distinction allows us to accept Dunson’s theological point while stating its implications more precisely. Common fallenness does not require empirical sameness, and empirical difference does not establish degrees of fallenness. The Christian doctrine of humanity instead fixes the boundaries within which empirical findings must be interpreted: one human nature, one Adamic solidarity, one moral law, and one salvation in Christ.
Partiality Is Not a Complete Moral Theology
Dunson’s most important limitation, however, is constructive. The category of sinful partiality tells us that some preferences are forbidden. It does not by itself explain the full field of legitimate particular obligation. Dunson can reject racial favoritism before a judge, permit a nation to prioritize its citizens, allow restrictive immigration, accept non-diverse congregations, and distinguish marital preference from matrimonial prohibition. Those positions can be coherent, but their coherence depends upon a moral grammar his essay largely assumes.
Why can a father prefer his child while a judge cannot prefer his brother? Why can a magistrate reserve political goods to citizens while owing justice to foreigners within his jurisdiction? Why may a congregation operate in one language without making that language a condition of salvation? Why can severe need override an otherwise legitimate order of ordinary preference? Why can gratitude toward ancestors be virtuous while ancestral loyalty becomes vicious when it commands injustice?
The answer cannot be one fixed ranking of persons in which family is always first, compatriot second, stranger third. Such a model fails almost immediately. If my healthy child and I encounter an unknown child drowning in a pond, the stranger’s acute need and my immediate capacity to act can create the stronger present claim. If I sit as judge and my son appears as a litigant, public office changes the rule of action. If I am pastor of a particular congregation, my vocational obligation limits how I distribute finite ministerial labor even though every Christian belongs to the same universal church.
The order of love is therefore not one scale. It is a coordination of goods, persons, relations, obligations, circumstances, needs, promises, offices, institutions, and common goods. That thicker account is what the controversy requires.
The Reformed Order of Particular Loves
The constructive alternative to Kinism is not an attenuated particularism that permits a little family affection and patriotism around the edges of an otherwise individualist social theory. Reformed moral theology possesses a substantially denser account of how finite human love acquires determinate form.
The Decalogue is crucial. The second table does not command one undifferentiated benevolence. It specifies love through authority, life, chastity, property, truth, and desire. The Westminster Larger Catechism’s exposition of the fifth commandment makes the point particularly explicit: the command extends through the relations of superiors, inferiors, and equals and through authority in family, church, and commonwealth. Calvin, commenting on 1 Timothy 5:8, likewise treats care for one’s own as a duty taught by nature and speaks in the language of natural affection.¹⁷ Moral life is therefore relational and vocational before questions of race or nationhood even arise.
Perkins gives one important expression of this through vocation. A calling is not merely a modern occupation. It is a concrete form of life and service through which responsibility is assigned and the common good is served. Ames supplies a complementary control by making the revealed will of God the perfect rule of conscience: concrete obligations may be specified through calling, relation, and circumstance, but no particular attachment becomes self-authorizing against divine law.¹⁸ Together these categories prevent Christian reasoning from becoming an abstract comparison of human worth. The question becomes not simply, “Whom do I love more?” but, “What good am I responsible to administer here, in what relation, and according to what law?”
Althusius contributes the social architecture. Politics begins with association and the mutual communication of things, services, rights, and obligations. His argument then unfolds across differentiated associations: natural and private association, collegia, cities, provinces, and the universal commonwealth.¹⁹ Human social life therefore consists neither of isolated individuals on one side and the sovereign state on the other nor of one natural relation replicated at increasing scale. Different associations communicate different goods and possess correspondingly differentiated forms of order.
Keckermann makes the institutional point unusually explicit. In the preliminaries to his Systema disciplinae politicae, he distinguishes ethical prudence, economic prudence, and political prudence according to individual, domestic, and public happiness. He then expressly refuses to count the household itself among political societies, precisely so that the discipline of economics is not confused with political doctrine.²⁰ The family is therefore not simply a miniature state, and the commonwealth is not merely the household expanded over territory.
That distinction is especially important for Kinist retrieval. Genealogy is constitutive of some household relations in a way it is not constitutive of every political relation. An analogy between family and commonwealth can be genuine without producing identity of jurisdiction. A polity grows historically from persons and households, but the public goods it administers and the offices through which it acts cannot simply be derived from paternal authority.
Wendelin gives this conceptual distinction concrete juridical form. In Book II, chapter 17 of his Institutionum politicarum, he asks how someone becomes a subject and distinguishes origin from domicile. He then separately asks who may be numbered among citizens and whether foreigners may safely be admitted.²¹ Genealogy, residence, subjecthood, citizenship, and office are therefore related realities without being synonyms. A person can acquire a real political relation without acquiring fictitious ancestors, while political incorporation can communicate genuine rights and obligations without implying that every distinction of origin disappears.
Reformed treatments of charity supply the complementary moral limitation. Pareus, commenting on Romans 13, describes charity as a perpetual and universal debt that remains owed to all. Zepper simultaneously recognizes an ordinary priority toward household members, compatriots, and natives while holding that sufficiently urgent foreign need can reverse that ordinary sequence when those nearer parties are themselves secure.²² This is neither “family always first” nor “everyone equally.” Standing relationships ordinarily structure responsibility, but circumstances can specify or reorder the act that charity presently requires.
To make this architecture clearer, it is useful to distinguish different kinds of relation rather than describing all particularity as “natural.” Some relations are natural, such as generation, parenthood, kinship, and the bodily dimension of marriage. Others are covenantal or instituted, such as ecclesial membership, ministerial office, vows, and marriage considered as a covenantal bond. Still others are civil and juridical, such as domicile, subjecthood, citizenship, contract, and public office. Some are providential and historical, such as peoplehood, language, homeland, inherited culture, neighborhood, and political history. Finally, some are situational, arising especially through proximity, opportunity, danger, and urgent need.
These classes overlap. Marriage is natural and covenantal. Political membership may be juridical and historically inherited. A church can be instituted and nationally situated. The purpose of the distinctions is therefore not to build watertight boxes but to prevent one relation from silently inheriting the competence of another.
Within that larger architecture, at least six recurring modes of moral nearness deserve particular attention: kinship, covenant, office, proximity, gratitude, and need. Kinship creates obligations rooted in generation, dependence, and familial communion. Covenant creates claims through solemn relation, promise, ecclesial membership, and pledged fidelity. Office identifies goods entrusted to a person not merely as a private individual but as parent, pastor, magistrate, judge, teacher, employer, or another recognized agent. Proximity creates opportunity: the neighbor actually before us can possess a claim that a more distant person does not presently possess. Gratitude answers received good and makes benefactor, ancestor, teacher, country, church, and friend morally significant in ways bare universalism cannot explain. Need can intensify or reorder ordinary priorities, because acute danger or deprivation may create an immediate claim stronger than a standing but presently non-urgent relation.
These are not six competing ladders. They interact. A parent’s kinship and office normally reinforce one another. A citizen’s gratitude and political membership can reinforce duties toward his commonwealth. A pastor’s ecclesial relation and office specify his ordinary labor. Yet proximity and desperate need can temporarily create an obligation toward a stranger that exceeds what an ordinary order of beneficence would otherwise require.
Promise can also intensify several kinds of relation. Marriage vows specify a natural relation. An oath of office specifies political duty. Contracts specify economic obligations. Ecclesiastical vows and commitments can specify forms of church responsibility. Promise does not invent moral reality from nothing, but it can create determinate claims where previously only general charity existed.
The result is not moral relativism. Every relation remains beneath divine law. A father cannot invoke family love to murder another man’s child. A magistrate cannot invoke patriotism to condemn an innocent foreigner. A church cannot invoke cultural continuity to deny Christ’s ordinance to someone whom Christ authorizes it to receive. A citizen cannot invoke universal humanity to deny every special debt to the commonwealth whose goods and burdens he shares.
The Reformed order of particular loves is therefore an account of universal moral obligation administered through differentiated relations under bounded jurisdictions. It can affirm natural affection without allowing affection to corrupt judgment; ancestry without turning ancestry into sacramental standing; national continuity without treating political communities as closed biological organisms; incorporation without pretending ancestry and historical continuity are unreal; citizen priority without denying universal justice; and catholicity without requiring cultural abstraction. That is a much thicker alternative than either “race does not matter” or “kinship governs social order.”
Peoplehood, Nation, and Incorporation
This framework also permits a more careful account of nationhood than either a proposition nation or a purely genealogical nation. A people is not simply an aggregate of contemporary individuals. Historical peoples ordinarily possess continuity across time, and generation is often central to that continuity. Children receive names, stories, language, worship, institutions, loyalties, and historical memories before they can consciously affirm them. A society incapable of reproducing or transmitting itself will eventually cease to exist as the society it was.
Yet genealogy does not exhaust every form of political membership or every process by which historical peoples develop. The early-modern political sources themselves recognize political relations arising through more than origin alone. Wendelin distinguishes subjecthood by origin and domicile and separately treats the admission of foreigners into citizenship. Keckermann knows both kin-related and non-kin forms of settlement and deliberately distinguishes domestic society from political society. Althusius makes communicated rights, services, obligations, and association central to public life.²³
The sources therefore establish a conceptual point that matters for the present argument: origin is real, but it is not the only conceivable title of political relation.
From that distinction we can construct a further analytical distinction between nation and commonwealth. Nation names the historically continuous people, sustained through some combination of generation, language, place, religion, law, custom, memory, and culture. Commonwealth names the constituted public association under law, government, territory, and public office. The two often overlap closely, and healthy political life may depend upon substantial correspondence between them. But they are not conceptually identical. A historical nation can survive loss of sovereignty. A commonwealth can contain more than one historical people. A person can acquire genuine civil standing even while his relation to the thicker historical people develops gradually.
This also clarifies what I mean by incorporation. Civil incorporation is juridical: competent authority can communicate domicile, subjecthood, citizenship, or another recognized political status according to law. National incorporation, as I am using the term constructively, is thicker and historical. It concerns the gradual formation of identification and belonging through such things as language, education, marriage, neighborhood, shared institutions, public memory, allegiance, common burdens, and the raising of subsequent generations within the receiving society.
Neither process changes genealogy. That is precisely the point. Incorporation need not require the fiction that a newcomer has acquired different ancestors. It can create a new juridical relation immediately and a deeper historical relation gradually.
The early-modern Reformed writers do not give us a ready-made twenty-first-century immigration code, nor should they be made to do so. Their categories do not settle how many immigrants a modern nation should admit, from where, at what rate, or under what conditions. Those are questions of political prudence involving facts the older writers could not have known.
They do, however, prevent two opposite reductions. Political membership cannot be treated as nothing more than individual ideological assent, because political association is embodied, juridical, institutional, historical, and directed toward concrete common goods. But political membership cannot simply be collapsed into genealogy either, because the sources themselves recognize domicile, admission, communicated right, association, and different juridical statuses.
This matters for immigration because neither universal equality nor ancestry by itself can settle the question. A magistrate may consider the common good of the actual political community: public safety, institutional stability, economic capacity, cultural continuity, social trust, strategic interest, demographic effects, the practical capacity for incorporation, and obligations already incurred toward citizens. Nothing in Christian universalism creates a presumption that every willing migrant possesses a claim to admission. Dunson is right to insist upon substantial national discretion.
At the same time, recognition of lawful incorporation means that the foreigner need not remain politically foreign in precisely the same sense through every generation. If no domicile, oath, lawful grant, shared language, education, common service, marriage, or generational participation can ever communicate any genuine title of membership, the argument has moved from concern for inherited national continuity toward a theory of permanent hereditary incapacity.
That is a much stronger proposition, and it requires a much stronger theological and juridical warrant than the bare fact that ancestry matters.
The older Reformed political grammar gives us something more useful: origin without immobility, incorporation without fictitious genealogy, membership without abstraction, and continuity without caste.
Why the Label Should Be Relinquished
The case for relinquishing the Kinist label is not principally that the name is socially embarrassing or that hostile critics have attached unpleasant associations to it. That would be a weak argument and would leave unanswered the theological problems that generated the movement.
The stronger reason is that the label increasingly bundles together questions Christian moral theology needs to distinguish. Peoplehood is not the same question as population biology. Population biology is not matrimonial theology. Marriage is not political incorporation. Political incorporation is not baptism. Natural affection is not judicial procedure. A concern for national continuity is not automatically a doctrine of permanent racial incapacity. A local congregation’s demographic particularity is not identical to ancestry as an ecclesiastical qualification.
A single movement label encourages these questions to migrate into one another. Once Kinism becomes the controlling synthesis, an argument that begins with family can silently become an argument about citizenship; an argument about aggregate population difference can become an argument about marriage; a national preference can become an ecclesiastical rule. What began as retrieval becomes a system, and the system can acquire authority over the sources from which it originally claimed to retrieve.
That creates a methodological danger. Retrieval initially asks, What did Scripture and the Reformed tradition teach about kinship, peoples, strangers, citizenship, marriage, church, and the order of love? A movement-centered project can gradually change the question to, How can we demonstrate that the Reformers were Kinists? Those are different historical projects. The first permits discovery; the second invites recruitment. A genuine retrieval must remain capable of correcting the people performing it.
If Calvin gives natural affection more weight than contemporary cosmopolitanism comfortably permits, receive it.¹⁷ If Althusius provides thicker mechanisms of association and incorporation than a modern ethnonational theory expects, receive those too. If Reformed marriage theology does not recognize ancestry as an intrinsic impediment, the modern synthesis must yield. If Reformed catholicity permits nationally and linguistically particular churches while refusing ancestry as a sacramental qualification, both conclusions must stand. If Keckermann distinguishes household and commonwealth more sharply than a familial theory of politics would prefer, that distinction belongs to the retrieval. A tradition that can only confirm us is not functioning as a tradition; it has become an arsenal.
There is also a practical reason to move beyond the label. Kinism now contains sufficiently strong formulations that anyone who adopts the name must spend substantial energy explaining which versions he rejects. That situation is partly caused by hostile caricature, but not wholly. Strong and maximal arguments really have been made. When Kinism becomes a central element of Christian faith, when ancestry moves toward confessional necessity, when population generalizations acquire individual juridical force, or when prudential endogamy becomes universal divine prohibition, the movement itself has increased the burden carried by the label.
The solution need not be endless boundary policing over who counts as a “true Kinist.” A better solution is to state each proposition under the theological category to which it belongs. Natural affection belongs to moral theology; household order to domestic theology; peoplehood to creation, providence, history, and social ontology; national continuity and immigration to political prudence and the common good; marriage to matrimonial theology; ecclesial particularity to language, locality, jurisdiction, and church order; population differences to the disciplines competent to investigate them.
Each proposition can then be judged according to the evidence, authority, and consequences appropriate to its own domain rather than being carried by the gravitational pull of a movement label. The older vocabulary is better because it is more differentiated and therefore more demanding.
A Word to Critics of Kinism
Critics also have obligations in this retrieval. They should not allow the genuine errors of Kinism to become excuses for avoiding the questions Kinists raised. A Christian discourse incapable of speaking positively about natural affection, fathers and mothers, ancestors, inherited goods, homeland, cultural memory, political continuity, and the duties citizens owe their own commonwealth will continually recreate the conditions for movements of this kind.
If neighbor-love is interpreted so that special duties become morally suspicious, people will notice that the vocabulary no longer describes ordinary fidelity. If catholicity becomes interchangeable with cosmopolitanism, people will notice that ecclesial doctrine has been made to answer civil questions it was not intended to settle. If every concern about large-scale demographic transformation is dismissed as racism before questions of public prudence are considered, people will conclude that legitimate political goods have become unspeakable. If nationality is reduced to individual assent to abstract propositions, inherited histories and solidarities will reappear elsewhere in less disciplined forms.
Retrieval movements commonly emerge because some truth has become difficult to articulate in the prevailing language. That does not make the resulting retrieval sound. Neglected truths often return in unstable forms precisely because they have been detached from the larger doctrines that once ordered them.
The answer to an unstable retrieval is therefore not suppression of the recovered truth but a more faithful retrieval. Critics of Kinism should be able to affirm without embarrassment that the natural family is not a voluntary contract, ancestry can generate real gratitude, historical peoples are real, national continuity can be a genuine political good, countries may restrict immigration, citizenship matters, cultures can differ in moral quality, natural affection is good, and Christian universalism does not produce a universal civil state. None of those propositions settles every policy dispute, but together they create the conceptual space in which the disputes can be conducted responsibly.
A Word to Those Who Have Called Themselves Kinists
Those who have called themselves Kinists should make a corresponding concession. If the movement truly understands itself as retrieval, loyalty to the movement cannot be more important than loyalty to what is being retrieved.
What would successful Kinist retrieval actually look like? It should not be the permanent addition of Kinism to the doctrinal vocabulary of Reformed Christianity. If the movement’s best propositions are genuinely scriptural, natural, and historically Reformed, they do not require the label to remain true.
One can affirm that nations have historical and genealogical dimensions without making genealogy their single essence. One can reject an entirely propositional account of nationality without denying lawful incorporation. One can defend restrictive immigration and citizen priority without making ordinary justice dependent upon ancestry. One can affirm that people commonly marry within familiar cultural and social worlds without declaring cross-ancestry marriage intrinsically sinful. One can defend nationally and linguistically particular churches without making racial lineage a term of baptism or communion. One can study population differences without turning statistical tendencies into personal verdicts.
Nothing important is lost when these propositions are returned to the disciplines that properly govern them. Something important is gained: each claim becomes answerable to the evidence and authority appropriate to it. That is not surrender to modern egalitarianism. It is confidence that the Christian tradition already possesses categories strong enough to defend natural and political particularity without requiring a modern ideological synthesis to hold them together.
The invitation to abandon the label should therefore be heard positively. Those concerned with kinship, nationhood, cultural inheritance, demographic continuity, or political membership should not stop thinking about those subjects. They should think about them more deeply and under a larger authority. If Kinism recovered fragments of Reformed orthodoxy, the next task is not to defend the fragments as a complete system. It is to recover the rest.
After Kinism
Dunson’s article is best received neither as a definitive refutation after which the underlying questions disappear nor as an attack that Kinists must repel in order to preserve everything associated with the movement. It is an opportunity to clarify where significant agreement already exists and where a more exact moral theology is needed.
Dunson is right that Christian salvation is not racially tiered, that ancestry does not create separate access to Christ, that racial difference does not constitute an intrinsic impediment to Christian marriage, and that public justice cannot simply be converted into racial preference. He is also right to preserve national discretion, immigration restriction, citizen priority, cultural continuity, and the legitimacy of congregations that are not deliberately demographically engineered. Those concessions should not be treated as incidental qualifications. They reveal the space in which a positive Reformed account of particularity must be developed.
Kinists, meanwhile, were right to perceive that human beings are not disembodied individuals, that natural relations carry moral weight, that historical peoples are more than ideological clubs, that inheritance creates gratitude, and that finite love is administered through differentiated obligations. They were right to resist a version of Christian universality that could speak readily of “humanity” while losing the vocabulary for father, neighbor, congregation, citizen, and fatherland. Their mistake begins when one true relation is made to govern the entire moral world.
Reformed orthodoxy offers a different architecture. Humanity is one by creation, image, Adamic descent, fall, moral law, and the one redemption in Christ. Peoples are many by generation, providence, language, place, culture, memory, religion, law, and political history. Households, churches, and commonwealths are genuine societies administering different goods through different offices. Natural relations create real claims, but those claims remain bounded by the law governing the relevant institution. Public justice cannot become private affection; private affection cannot create sacramental disabilities; aggregate evidence cannot automatically become a personal verdict; prudence cannot silently become divine law; providence cannot be equated with moral approval; historical continuity does not require historical immobility; lawful incorporation does not falsify genealogy; and catholicity does not require cultural abstraction.
This is not a compromise halfway between cosmopolitanism and Kinism. It is a different moral grammar, one in which both universal obligation and particular duty become intelligible because neither is forced to do the work of the other.
If this retrieval succeeds, Kinism may best be remembered as one of the pressures that compelled Reformed Christians to return to questions they had too often neglected: peoplehood, generation, natural affection, historical memory, political membership, national continuity, incorporation, borders, and the order of love. Its better intuitions should be retained, its mistaken extensions corrected, and its maximal claims refused. Its adherents and critics alike should be invited into a tradition richer than the controversy that occasioned the retrieval.
A retrieval movement succeeds when it makes itself unnecessary. What we need next is not a better Kinism, but a thicker Reformed orthodoxy.
Notes
1. Ben Dunson, “A Critique of Kinism,” Confessional Presbyterian, August 18, 2026, especially the discussions of marriage, the church, justice, and the nation.
2. Dunson, “A Critique of Kinism”; Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 1: Introduction,” Pactum Institute, July 1, 2024.
3. Thorin Reynolds, “Is Segregation Scriptural?,” Faith & Heritage, August 28, 2013; Davis Carlton, “A Response to Truth Tribune on Kinism,” Faith & Heritage, October 4, 2017. These sources directly support the narrower historical claim made in the text: prominent Kinist writers have consciously presented the movement as recovery rather than invention.
4. Dunson, “A Critique of Kinism,” especially his discussions of marriage, the church, immigration, and national political authority. Dunson explicitly permits nations to admit and grant citizenship to “however many or few they desire,” while insisting upon impartial justice within their borders.
5. Davis Carlton, “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism,” Faith & Heritage, January 19, 2011.
6. Thorin Reynolds, “What Is Kinism?,” Faith & Heritage, August 5, 2013.
7. Faith & Heritage, “FAQ,” especially questions 13, 15, 19, and 29.
8. Bret McAtee, “A Simple Definition of Kinism Offered and Defended,” Iron Ink, July 1, 2025.
9. Carlton, “A Response to Truth Tribune on Kinism.” Carlton accepts the weak/strong/stronger taxonomy while treating the ethnonational question as more foundational than the Rahab and interracial-marriage controversy.
10. Carlton, “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism”; Carlton, “A Response to Truth Tribune on Kinism”; Reynolds, “What Is Kinism?” These public primary sources establish the narrower chronological claim that by 2011–2013 ethnonationalism, nationhood, and civil order were already integral to prominent Kinist argument.
11. Dunson, “A Critique of Kinism,” discussion of marriage; Westminster Confession of Faith 24.3–4. Dunson describes marriage “in the Lord” as the New Testament’s “only restriction”; WCF 24.3–4 shows why that language should not be treated as an exhaustive account of every condition or impediment recognized in Reformed matrimonial theology.
12. Dunson, “A Critique of Kinism,” discussion of the church; Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2, 25.4; Belgic Confession 27, 29; Heidelberg Catechism 54. WCF 25.2 and Belgic 27 establish catholicity beyond one nation or place; WCF 25.4 and Belgic 29 assess particular churches through doctrine, ordinances or sacraments, worship, and discipline rather than demographic composition.
13. Davis Carlton, “Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 3,” Faith & Heritage, January 1, 2015; idem, “Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 7,” Faith & Heritage, March 2, 2015. Part 3 distinguishes the visible church from ethnic Israel and denies that entrance into the visible church requires a particular racial lineage; Part 7 argues for ordinarily homogeneous local congregations while denying that Christians of different races are inherently forbidden to worship together.
14. Dunson, “A Critique of Kinism,” discussions of racial partiality and the nation; Westminster Confession of Faith 23.1, on the magistrate’s public vocation and the public good; Marcus Friedrich Wendelin, Institutionum politicarum libri III (Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1659), II.17, thesis 2, explanations 1–3; thesis 3, explanations 1–2, distinguishing origin, domicile, subjecthood, citizenship, and admission. The specific application to modern incidents of citizenship is constructive rather than a direct quotation from the confession.
15. Michael Spangler, “Christian Race Realism, Part 1: Introduction,” Pactum Institute, July 1, 2024; idem, “Christian Race Realism, Part 6: Application,” Pactum Institute, August 26, 2024. Spangler prefers race realist while accepting Kinist because he regards the substantive differences with those preferring that label as comparatively small.
16. Ben Dunson, “A Critique of Kinism,” Confessional Presbyterian, August 18, 2026, “Justice and Racial Partiality,” together with the preceding discussion of “Race.” Dunson states that no race is more morally, physically, intellectually, or spiritually damaged by the fall than another. The preceding discussion makes clear that this is not a denial that populations may share biological characteristics or exhibit aggregate differences: Dunson expressly acknowledges the former and discusses the latter while disputing or questioning their causes. The present argument therefore reads his later statement as denying racial degrees of Adamic corruption rather than asserting empirical sameness among populations.
17. Westminster Larger Catechism 123–133, especially its exposition of the fifth commandment through superiors, inferiors, equals, family, church, and commonwealth; John Calvin, commentary on 1 Timothy 5:8, where care for one’s own is treated as a duty taught by nature and the neglect of natural affection is severely condemned.
18. William Perkins, “A Treatise on Vocations,” in The Works of William Perkins, vol. 10, ed. Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and J. Stephen Yuille (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020), 51–52; William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof (Leiden and London, 1639), bk. I. Perkins defines vocation as a divinely ordered form of life and service related to the common good; Ames makes God’s revealed will the perfect rule of conscience.
19. Johannes Althusius, Politica Methodice Digesta, 3rd ed. (Herborn, 1614), I.1–3 on association and communication; II.1–6 on natural and private association; ch. IV on collegia; chs. V–VI on the city; chs. VII–VIII on provincial association; and ch. IX on universal public association. See also Frederick S. Carney, trans., Politica (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995).
20. Bartholomaeus Keckermann, Systema disciplinae politicae: publicis praelectionibus anno 1606 in Gymnasio Dantiscano propositum; accessit Synopsis disciplinae oeconomicae (Hanau: Guilielmus Antonius, 1608), preliminaries, “Definition and Object of the Political State”; General Canons of Political Prudence 1–3; and the ensuing division of primary political society. Keckermann distinguishes ethical, economic, and political prudence according to individual, domestic, and public happiness and expressly refuses to count the household among political societies so as not to confuse economics and politics.
21. Marcus Friedrich Wendelin, Institutionum politicarum libri III (Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1659), II.17, thesis 2, explanations 1–3; thesis 3, explanations 1–2.
22. David Pareus, In divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli Apostoli epistolam commentarius (Heidelberg: impensis Jonae Rosae, typis Johannis Lancelloti, 1613), on Romans 13:8–10; Wilhelm Zepper, De politia ecclesiastica sive forma ac ratio administrandi et gubernandi regni Christi, quod est ecclesia in his terris (Herborn: Christoph Corvinus, 1595), II.21, 419. Pareus’s locus should receive final page collation against the edition selected for publication; Zepper’s locus is already page-controlled.
23. Wendelin, Institutionum politicarum, II.17, thesis 2, explanations 1–3; thesis 3, explanations 1–2; Althusius, Politica, I–II, IV–IX; Keckermann, Systema disciplinae politicae, preliminaries and General Canons 1–3. These sources establish the component distinctions among association, household, public society, origin, domicile, subjecthood, citizenship, and admission. The distinction developed in the essay between “civil incorporation” and the thicker process termed “national incorporation” is a constructive synthesis and is not attributed verbatim to any one of these writers.
Bibliography
Althusius, Johannes. Politica Methodice Digesta. 3rd ed. Herborn, 1614. Translated by Frederick S. Carney as Politica. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1995.
Ames, William. Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof. Leiden and London, 1639.
Belgic Confession.
Calvin, John. Commentary on 1 Timothy 5:8.
Carlton, Davis. “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism.” Faith & Heritage. January 19, 2011.
———. “Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 3.” Faith & Heritage. January 1, 2015.
———. “Kinist Orthodoxy: A Response to Brian Schwertley, Part 7.” Faith & Heritage. March 2, 2015.
———. “A Response to Truth Tribune on Kinism.” Faith & Heritage. October 4, 2017.
Dunson, Ben. “A Critique of Kinism.” Confessional Presbyterian. August 18, 2026.
Faith & Heritage. “FAQ.”
Heidelberg Catechism.
Keckermann, Bartholomaeus. Systema disciplinae politicae: publicis praelectionibus anno 1606 in Gymnasio Dantiscano propositum; accessit Synopsis disciplinae oeconomicae. Hanau: Guilielmus Antonius, 1608.
McAtee, Bret. “A Simple Definition of Kinism Offered and Defended.” Iron Ink. July 1, 2025.
Pareus, David. In divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli Apostoli epistolam commentarius. Heidelberg: Impensis Jonae Rosae, typis Johannis Lancelloti, 1613.
Perkins, William. “A Treatise on Vocations.” In The Works of William Perkins. Vol. 10. Edited by Joseph A. Pipa Jr. and J. Stephen Yuille. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020.
Reynolds, Thorin. “Is Segregation Scriptural?” Faith & Heritage. August 28, 2013.
———. “What Is Kinism?” Faith & Heritage. August 5, 2013.
Spangler, Michael. “Christian Race Realism, Part 1: Introduction.” Pactum Institute. July 1, 2024.
———. “Christian Race Realism, Part 6: Application.” Pactum Institute. August 26, 2024.
Westminster Confession of Faith.
Westminster Larger Catechism.
Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich. Institutionum politicarum libri III. Amsterdam: Johannes Janssonius, 1659.
Zepper, Wilhelm. De politia ecclesiastica sive forma ac ratio administrandi et gubernandi regni Christi, quod est ecclesia in his terris. Herborn: Christoph Corvinus, 1595.
Sir, this is a long read, but every bit of it is PURE GOLD! Thank you for this thorough and balanced treatment, and for tying the legitimate concerns Kinism has raised back to a more robust moral and theological framework that is founded in Scripture and Reformed tradition, and which soundly corrects Kinism’s excesses!