By Davis Carlton

Christian nationalists in general and Kinist ethno-nationalists in particular are often accused of the sin of partiality. The sin of partiality (called “respect of persons” in older English translations), is often defined broadly to include any preference that a man would have for his own people. This includes a desire to live among and be ruled by those of the same ethnicity, race, and culture. This accusation is usually used against white people in a way that never seems to be consistently applied to those of other races when they express similar preferences. This tactic has met with a decent amount of success because of the ability of pastors to appeal to Scriptures that do condemn something called partiality. The major problem is that partiality is left undefined. The implication being that the sin of partiality condemns any kind of in-group preference as being sinful.

Those attempting to condemn Kinism or Christian ethno-nationalism typically appeal to James 2:1, 9; “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory… But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” Additionally 1 Tim. 5:21 also condemns partiality. God is also said to act without partiality in Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; and Col. 3:25. Christians are not to judge with partiality because God does not, and our conduct is to reflect God in His holiness.

What is often missing in discussions on the sin of partiality is the fact that the Apostles are referring back to principles already taught in the Old Testament. Partiality is condemned in the Mosaic Law several times:

Lev. 19:15; “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

Deut. 1:17a; “You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s.”

Deut. 16:19; “You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous.”

Likewise, 2 Chr. 19:7; Job 13:8, 10, 32:21, 34:19; Ps. 82:2; Prov. 24:23, 28:21; and Mal. 2:9 teach that partiality is contrary to God’s character. The reason that this is significant is that it helps provide much needed context which is essential for properly understanding and applying this commandment. Justice is obviously the primary concern in the Biblical prohibition against partiality. What is condemned would be something along the lines of judges taking bribes in order to render a favorable verdict. What is not condemned is the normal affection and care that a man should have for his own family and tribe.

Thomas Aquinas addressed the sin of partiality in the Summa Theologica, calling it a violation of “distributive justice.” A couple of observations about Aquinas’ discussion of the sin of partiality are in order. Aquinas’ reflections on partiality or “respect of persons” is refreshingly nuanced in comparison to the overly simplistic approach taken by many today who suppose the sin of partiality to be the same as any natural bonds of affection. Aquinas clarifies the matter by pointing out that certain forms of favoritism are allowed and are even required. When discussing the “dispensation of spiritual goods,” Aquinas cites Deuteronomy 17:15 to justify the canon law stipulating that bishops should be taken from the flock that they are to govern, stating: “The man who is taken from among the members of a particular Church, is generally speaking more useful as regards the common good, since he loves more the Church wherein he was brought up.”

Aquinas also defends favoritism given to one’s own kinsfolk and relations provided it is justified. If a man makes choices respecting the common good in which he prefers a relative over a non-relative who is more competent, then this is the sin of partiality. However, if the two exhibit essentially the same competence, preference for relatives is good and natural, because he “can lawfully give preference to his kindred since there is at least this advantage, that he can trust the more in their being of one mind with him…”

Aquinas makes a helpful distinction between unjust partiality and the ordinary way people behave in normal relationships and responsibilities. There are natural limitations to our responsibilities. We have a greater obligation to care for the welfare of our near relations than others (1 Tim. 5:8), so the special attention that men must give to being a good husband, father, brother, son, and citizen of his country cannot be considered manifestations of unjust partiality.

The sin of partiality occurs when a man leverages his power and influence in ways that pervert justice. James was upset by the special treatment given to the rich (James 2), especially considering how the rich so often oppressed Christians. Justice was to be done with respect to the poor without taking advantage of his poverty (Ex. 23:6) or showing favoritism to the poor out of a sense of guilt or pity (Ex. 23:3, cf. Lev. 19:15). Similarly a politician or bureaucrat who “pulls strings” to get children out of trouble is committing the sin of partiality. There isn’t a better modern example of this than Joe Biden who frequently uses his political influence in order to shield his son Hunter from prosecution.

This doesn’t rule out a man doing whatever he can do in order to benefit those who are close to him such as his family, friends, and countrymen. Critical is the distinction between the demands of justice which are universal and privileges which vary by particular circumstances. The privileges that are particular to being a member of a certain family or nation are not unjust. There is nothing wrong with whites experiencing “white privilege” in their own homelands. In fact this is exactly what we should expect to find in a just world.

God demanded that there should be “one law for the stranger and native born” (Ex. 12:49) while also demanding that certain privileges be reserved to hereditary Israelites. “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22). This is not a manifestation of unjust preference, but the natural way of disposing earthly goods within families. This is something that is likewise recognized and regulated by the Law (Deut. 21:15-17). The Law also makes provision for keeping land with the same families (Lev. 25; Num. 27/36). The Law of Kin Rule also establishes the principle that the nations ought to be self-governed, rather than aggregated into a large multi-national empire (Deut. 17:15; Jer. 30:21).

This also explains how God is able to have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and compassion on whom He will have compassion (Rom. 9:15) while at the same time not being unjustly partial as in the verses mentioned above. God is not unjust in His choice of the elect without any foreseen conditions on their part, contrary to the objections of some. God would violate the principle of unjust partiality were He to clear the guilty contrary to Ex. 34:7, Num. 14:18, and Nah. 1:3, or if God were to reward the wicked as He does the righteous contrary to 1 Sam. 26:23, 1 Ki. 8:32 and 2 Chr. 6:23.

God does not do this in election. God’s outpouring of love is directed at His children, begotten through the new birth (John 3:5). God declares His children to be co-heirs through adoption with Christ, his unique and only begotten Son (Rom. 8:15-17). Those conformed to the image of the Son by the work of the Holy Spirit are able to forsake the works of the flesh and live according to the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-26) which means that God does not justify the wicked in the sense condemned in Prov. 17:15.

Ultimately, God is not committing unjust partiality because He is doing what any good Father would do by giving all things to His children (Rev. 21:7). Along the same lines, white Christians are not committing unjust partiality when we seek to preserve our identity and pass on our ancestral inheritance for the future generations of our offspring. Modern Christians who are quick to condemn Kinists on the grounds of partiality are failing to draw proper Biblical distinctions and in doing so, would end up condemning God Himself of partiality if their arguments were carried to their logical conclusion.