---
title: 'A Critique of Kinism'
type: text
hasMedia: true
requiresPurchase: false
authors:
- 'Ben Dunson'
date: 2026-08-18
collection: 'Articles'
subcollection: '2026'
topics:
- 'Ethics (General)'
- 'Race Relations and Slavery'
- 'Social Issues'
- 'Family, Marriage, and Roles of Men and Women'
- 'Politics'
- 'Anthropology (Doctrine of Man)'
scriptures:
- 'Genesis 9'
- 'Genesis 41'
- 'Exodus 22'
- 'Leviticus 19'
- 'Numbers 12'
- 'Deuteronomy 1'
- 'Deuteronomy 10'
- 'Deuteronomy 16'
- 'Ruth 4'
- 'Psalms 37'
- 'Psalms 82'
- 'Proverbs 18'
- 'Matthew 1'
- 'Luke 6'
- 'Acts 10'
- 'Romans 2'
- 'Romans 3'
- 'Romans 12'
- 'Romans 13'
- '1 Corinthians 7'
- 'Galatians 2'
- 'Galatians 3'
- 'Ephesians 6'
- 'Colossians 3'
- '1 Timothy 5'
- 'Titus 1'
- 'James 2'
- 'James 4'
- '1 Peter 2'
- 'Revelation 7'
url: https://confessional.org/articles/2026/a-critique-of-kinism
---

# A Critique of Kinism

In this careful study, Dr. Ben Dunson examines the claims of kinism (or “race realism”), probing the meaning of race and ethnicity, Scripture’s teaching on people groups, and the implications for marriage, the church, and the nation.

Kinism (or “race realism”) is currently experiencing a resurgence. Put simply, kinists hold that “we must name, praise, and protect racial distinctions.”1 The ideology, although mostly isolated to a fairly small number of people on the fringes of the Reformed world, produces trouble disproportionate to its size.

How should kinism be evaluated? Many discussions assume the meanings of terms like *race*, *ethnicity*, and *racism* are self-evident. Yet despite their common use, these concepts are surprisingly difficult to pin down. Before evaluating kinism, then, we must first clarify its two foundational terms: *race* and *ethnicity*.

## Race

The first term to address is *race*. Kinists frequently claim that “race is real” (hence: “race realism”). What this means for the kinist is that the world has a set number of distinct races, and that race is a mostly unchangeable, permanent biological reality found in a specific group of people. Included among these biological characteristics of different races would be intelligence, and according to some kinists, moral and spiritual capacities.

The common understanding of race today is immensely convoluted. This makes talking about race especially difficult. I suspect that most people either equate skin color or national origin with race, often with a fairly undefined mixture of the two categories. Consider, for example, standard categories of race that are used for purposes of government classifications (the census, etc.): a Hispanic is anyone with any ancestors originating from Spain, an Asian is anyone with ancestors originating in parts of the continent of Asia, a black person is anyone with ancestors from Africa. In the case of Hispanics, skin color plays less of a role, since many with Spanish ancestors have fair skin and hair. The category of Asian covers people with ancestors in a very large number of very diverse nations. The same is true of those who are black and white.

These common understandings differ from those in the past. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a very different understanding and definition of race developed. A variety of philosophers and scientists began to argue that race is a fixed biological reality. Many of these thinkers were polygenists, rejecting the biblical account of common descent from Adam and Eve in favor of the idea that the world is composed of different races with separate biological lineages. Much of this way of thinking was influenced or shaped by Darwinian evolution: just as physical differences in various animals were accounted for by supposed evolutionary processes, so must it be the case, these scientists argued, with observable physical differences in different groups of humans. However it was that they derived their theories, their conclusions were roughly the same: race is a fixed biological reality (thus an objective scientific reality) and there are a set number of separate races in the world that do not share a common origin.

This, of course, is impossible from a biblical standpoint: all men have common descent from Adam. It is also impossible from a biological standpoint, since men and women from the different “races” clearly can have children together, children who over time will take on physical characteristics different from their ancestors. This is not to deny that what people refer to as *races* today never have common biological characteristics: it has been shown, for example, that those of African descent are more prone to sickle-cell anemia, not to mention obvious differences in skin color and facial and bodily characteristics. But even such “biologically-fixed” realities, given enough time, can be altered.

That is not even to mention the exceeding difficulty in determining whether many differences are biological or cultural. For example, one could point to the fact that Asians in America on the whole have very high IQs and do very well academically. Is this a biological reality or a cultural reality? The latter seems more likely to me given what I know about family culture among those with Asian ancestry living in America. Regardless, I don’t think even the most vigorous opponents of kinism believe it is morally impermissible ever to say that certain groups of people might share some common biological characteristics.

What do we see when we come to the Bible? The Bible uses a variety of words for different kinds of people groups. Four of the central ones appear in Revelation 7:9 (NKJV): “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations \[*ethnous*\], tribes \[*phylōn*\], peoples \[*laōn*\], and tongues \[*glōssōn*\], standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands . . . .” Nations (*ethnous*) are people-groups defined by a common lineage and shared culture and traditions. In the Bible, all the people groups in the world apart from Israel are grouped into the category of “the nations.” There may be some sense in which the nations are understood to be “political” entities as well, formed around a common governing authority.2 Tribes (*phylōn*) are lineage-based subdivisions within nations (*ethnous*). To give a roughly contemporaneous example outside of the New Testament: In Julius Caesar’s war with the Gauls, the Gauls were the nation, while the Aedui, Arverni, Sequani, Nervii, and Remi were some of the most prominent tribes within the Gaulish nation or people. In the Bible, Israel was a nation, which was constituted by the twelve individual tribes. The word peoples (*laōn*) is very similar to the word nations (*ethnous*): it is also a group with common bonds and connections to a specific homeland, but lacks the nuance of political organization in the use of the word “nations.” Tongues (*glōssōn*) are simply language groups.

Revelation 7:9 places all of these categories together to show that in the new creation, God’s gathered people will be drawn from the full range of kinds of human groupings in the world. Another important word for a people group is found in 1 Peter 2:9: “a chosen race \[*genos*\]” (ESV). This phrase is applied to the church as the final manifestation of the true Israel of God but was originally simply a reference to Old-Testament Israel. The meaning of “race” (*genos*) in 1 Peter 2:9, despite the modern connotations of the word “race,” is roughly synonymous with nation in Revelation 7:9. In fact, both *ethnos* and *laos* are used as explicit synonyms of *genos* in 1 Peter 2:9.

One could quibble over any of the precise nuances of the biblical words for people groups provided in the previous two paragraphs. However, doing so would not change the most pertinent fact: none of the key biblical words for people groups come even close to modern “biological” definitions of race. Rather, they are all focused on different ways in which people groups organize themselves and how these groups extend across time.

So, what is race? Is it a matter of skin color, a matter of national ancestry, a matter of biology, or something else? In the mind of most people, it is probably a poorly thought-out mixture of the three. To make things even more complex, race has not always had that mixture of connotations. In the nineteenth century, and into the twentieth century, “race” was commonly understood to refer to what today would be called nationality: thus, one was of the English race, or the Spanish race, or the Chinese race.

Why spend so much time talking about definitions of race? I do so because kinism is driven by the claim that “race is real.” Given the discussion above, we could ask whether such a claim is even intelligible. Simple observation would show us that—to use the modern, semi-biological understanding for the sake of argument—races are clearly not static realities. A Hispanic man who marries an Asian woman, for example, will have children that take on certain physical characteristics of each. If those children were to marry people of other “races,” ongoing change would occur. Kinists argue that race is a static reality, but the observable reality of life is that this is false. The unchangeableness of race, rather than reflecting biological reality, is merely what kinists believe *should be* the case, which would require “races” not to intermarry. Race, then, turns out to remain permanent and unchangeable only if the kinists prevent the “races” from intermarrying and having children.3

In the end, it does not appear to me that the word race can be precisely and objectively defined. It depends on the individual using the word. A vague reference to some sort of relatively fixed biological reality seems to be the dominant understanding in common usage.

More importantly for this discussion, the kinist framework *needs* race to be a static, “real” category. In this, they are simply mimicking contemporary critical race theorists. Critical Race Theory (CRT) can be defined as any system that divides humanity into fixed racial classes for the purpose of combining the non-white groupings into a power bloc in order to take power from supposed white oppressors. Critical race theorists also need race to be “real” because their attempts to gain political and cultural power depend on it: race (for some races anyway), in this way of thinking, confers automatic victimhood status on a person, which then necessitates the stripping of privileges and resources from their oppressors (whites) and the giving of these privileges and resources to the supposedly oppressed races. Kinists do the same thing, although they simply place whites into the category of oppressed. If race isn’t an objective, fixed category both systems lose their meaning and pathway to power.4

## Ethnicity

Like “race,” the common usage of the word “ethnicity” has changed over time. The English word is derived from the Greek word *ethnos*. In the ancient world, it was used to refer to a people group bound together by some combination of common descent, traditions and customs, language, religion, and geography. Aristotle, for example, in Book 7 of his *Politics*, uses the word in its common ancient meaning when, after noting that “the whole inhabited world is divided up among the nations \[*ethnous*\],” he goes on to describe the characteristics of the nations in different parts of the world.5 Ethnicity, based on this older understanding then, refers to a people group rather than a race as defined in the modern “biological” understanding of race.

This older usage was common in English in the past. More recently, however, the dominant understanding of the word *ethnicity* has changed to be basically synonymous with the predominant contemporary use of the word *race*. Some lament this fact and have sought to recover the older understanding of ethnicity. In this understanding, ethnicity basically means nationality. Thus, American, Korean, German, and Kenyan, are all ethnicities, while black, white, Asian, and Hispanic are races. Thus, as this argument goes, if I were to say that I value my ethnicity and desire to preserve it I would simply be saying that I am an American who values the traditional American way of life (rule of law, republican form of government, baseball, apple pie, and all the rest).

While this particular “national” understanding of ethnicity and its preservation need not be sinful (though as with any good thing it can be a source of sin), it nonetheless appears to me to be a lost cause. The equation of ethnicity and race is so pervasive today that it is almost inevitable that the attempt to revive the older understanding will lead to confusion and the perception that one is actually defending some form of racial supremacy.

It is not necessary to do so either: a perfectly good alternative exists in the word *nationality*. Nations have unique cultures, and as the English political philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, “not all cultures achieve equal heights.”6 The political and legal systems of some are better than others; the music and art of some are superior to others; some are more developed technologically. All are a mixture of good and bad, without suggesting that all are equally good or equally bad. Insofar as a nation’s cultural identity is praiseworthy (morally and otherwise) it can and should be praised and cherished by its people.

Or perhaps one could simply refer to one’s people: the American people, the Ugandan people, the Romanian people, etc. The different peoples in the world have political, cultural, and religious distinctives. Some of these distinctives are better than others.

## Justice and Racial Partiality

This extensive examination of race and ethnicity is necessary because both kinism and Critical Race Theory fundamentally rely on the premise that race is a fixed, objective reality. Although precise, stable definitions of these terms remain elusive—and are likely unattainable—exploring these concepts reveals the shared foundational assumption underpinning both ideological systems: the assertion that race is inherently “real.” The two systems are a mirror image of each other. Kinists say race is real and that whites must strive to see that the white race triumphs over every other race. Critical race theorists also say that race is real. Therefore, all non-white races must band together to triumph, which necessitates the diminishment of the “white race.” Underlying both systems is a spurious concept of race, which posits dubious fixed biological realities as a basis for preferential treatment of some classes of people over others simply on the basis of what “race” they are.

My contention so far is that kinists and critical race theorists are mistaken in what they mean when they say that “race is real.” However, a critique of kinism must go further than this. We must also examine how our fellow human beings *should* be treated. This can be stated simply in two points. First, every human being is equally affected by the fall and therefore equally in need of salvation. Second, regardless of any group characteristic a person might share with others (skin color, national origin, etc.), that person must be treated fairly and justly according to God’s moral law. In this section I will defend these two claims.

Regarding the first point: the fall did not affect any group—i.e. any “race”—any more than any other. No “race” is more morally, physically, intellectually, or spiritually damaged by the fall than any other group. Kinism has a flawed biblical anthropology at its heart. All are equally in need of salvation, and all find that salvation on the exact same terms only in Christ, and will be transformed in the same way by the working of the Holy Spirit:

> Rom. 3:10: “None is righteous, no, not one.”
> 
> Rom. 3:19–20: “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
> 
> Rom. 3:22–25: “there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that kinists have argued that certain races are inherently more morally corrupt than others, some have also argued that some races are less capable of being sanctified than others, or that churches should be segregated according to race—both notions which cut directly against the biblical teaching of Christ’s work in salvation: an all-sufficient savior who rescues all who look to him in faith from the condemnation due their sin and from the enslaving power of that sin, and who brings them into a single family in himself. There are no racial tiers of sanctification or Christian fellowship in the body of Christ.

Kinists occasionally appeal to Paul’s comment about Cretans in Titus 1 as a counterexample. However, the apostle’s words only illustrate my point. Paul writes that Cretan culture has been infected by the sin of dishonesty: “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true” (Titus 1:12–13). This is not a racial claim, or about “biology,” but about the effect of sin in a particular culture. Sin is not a merely personal reality. Every kind of grouping by which humans organize themselves is susceptible to sin. Neighborhoods, cities, states, nations, churches, civic organizations, and any other human group can become infected by particular sins.

In Crete, the sin was dishonesty, but the reason Paul warns Titus about the Cretans is to prepare him for his ministry among them. Paul doesn’t say these things to indicate that Cretans are “biologically” inferior to others or “biologically” incapable of honesty. Rather, Titus needs to know that he will face specific challenges in his gospel ministry because of the sinful culture of dishonesty that has grown up in Crete. If the gospel takes root there, as Paul certainly hoped it would, the culture of dishonesty—at least among the converted Cretans—would be overcome by the Holy Spirit’s working and would fade away. Such a text, then, gives no support to the notion that some “races” are inherently more fallen or corrupt than others.

Kinists also routinely state that the fall affected African peoples (some of whom in the Bible trace their lineage to Ham) more than others by appealing to the so-called “curse of Ham.” Noah’s curse, of course, was on Canaan, not Ham (Gen. 9:25), and is the Bible’s explanation for the moral and spiritual degradation of the Canaanite tribes in the promised land at the time of Israel’s conquest. This curse has nothing to do with biology, and therefore with the pseudo-biological concept of race, nor does it have anything to do with Africa, for that matter.

Regarding the second point: while some in the modern world have [wrongly appealed](https://confessional.org/articles/2026/the-image-of-god-and-human-dignity) to the image of God to create an almost unlimited number of positive “human rights” (to universal education, childcare, a living wage, free movement across national borders, etc.), the Bible does ground a basic principle of interpersonal morality in the image of God. Genesis 9:6, for example, grounds the justice of capital punishment in the image of God: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” James 3:9–10 speaks similarly: “With it \[the tongue\] we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.”

The reason it is wrong to treat another human being unjustly is because all human beings are made in the image of God. As with all of God’s laws, this particular obligation is not merely negative: we must not simply refrain from unjustly harming others—we must treat them justly in all circumstances. The image of God, in the sense to which it is appealed in Gen 9:6, is universal. All men and women share this image equally. No class of people lacks it, and no class of people can therefore be treated as less deserving of just treatment. This principle can also be stated in terms of race and ethnicity (regardless of how one defines those terms): the Christian moral imperative is to treat any individual in any larger class of individuals justly according to God’s moral law. No human beings should be treated as if they are of an inherently lesser status in the eyes of God or man because of some aspect of how God made them.

In this entire discussion I have avoided using the word *racism*. This word is also ambiguous in contemporary usage. Many in our day, for example, claim that a company is racist if it does not have a racial quota system for hiring and advancement. Others would contend that a small rural church is racist if it does not have a certain percentage of racial minorities attending, though they would not apply the same standard to so-called “ethnic churches.”

Instead of the term “racism,” it would be better to employ biblical words and categories. The most important one is the sin of partiality. The Old and New Testaments speak often of this sin.

In Exodus 22:3, the law states that “you shall not be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.” Blind justice must prevail. The poor may not favor their own, nor shall one “defer to the great” (Lev. 19:15). No individual may show favoritism to a family member, nor may any class of people show favoritism to a member of their own class: “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. 1:17). Man must not be partial in judgment because “the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe” (Deut. 10:17). Partiality, manifest often in bribery to sway legal cases, “blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous” (Deut. 16:19). One of the chief charges laid against wayward Israel in Psalm 82:2 is put in terms of a question about partiality: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” In Prov 18:5 we read that it “is not good to be partial to the wicked” because that “deprive\[s\] the righteous of justice.”

The New Testament speaks with the same voice as the Old to the sin of partiality. First, we see that “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6), but rather always acts with perfect equity and justice. In light of God’s impartiality, man is required to be impartial as well. Ephesians 6:9 (see also Colossians 3:25) tells earthly masters, “Stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.” God’s impartiality necessitates that justice must shape one’s actions rather than personal advantage. In cases where charges are brought against elders in the church, Paul commands Timothy to ensure that there is no “prejudging” and that the church does “nothing from partiality” (1 Tim. 5:21). Only strict adherence to impartial evidence is allowed. James 2 presents a particularly relevant case. The church is told to “show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (2:1), nor to show favoritism to “a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing” while mistreating “a poor man in shabby clothing” (2:2). Such distinctions make the church into “judges with evil thoughts” (2:4). The very heart of the Old Testament law is fulfilled through love (2:8), which is set in contrast to partiality (2:9).

There are many ways to be sinfully partial. If one takes an aspect of how God made another man and uses that aspect as a reason to treat that man as beneath oneself, he has fallen into sinful partiality. The aspect could be skin color, wealth, national origin, or any number of things. At its most basic, then, what is wrong with kinism is that it treats other people as ontologically, morally, spiritually, or legally inferior because of things like skin color. If this is all that is meant by racism, then there would be no major problem in using the word.

Having stated some basic principles we must now turn to specific applications regarding marriage, the church, and society and state, the three areas in which kinists claim that “racial mixing” is morally problematic.

## Marriage

Kinists claim that “interracial marriage” is wrong. The basic thought underlying this is that there is a moral imperative to preserve one’s race. As Michael Spangler, a proponent of kinism, puts it: “we must name, praise, and protect racial distinctions.”7 However, there are numerous blessed marriages in the Bible between what kinists would consider different races. These mixed marriages do not actually correspond with the modern concept of race, but rather with the older understanding of ethnicity (i.e. different people groups). Joseph marries the Egyptian Asenath (Gen. 41:45). Miriam and Aaron criticize Moses specifically for marrying a Cushite woman, though the Lord sides with Moses (Num. 12:1–16). Boaz marries the Moabite Ruth, which marriage is abundantly blessed, and Ruth is carefully noted in the Bible as David’s great-grandmother (Ruth 4:22) and an ancestor of Jesus (Matt. 1:5).

In the New Testament, the only restriction placed on marriage is that it be “in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39)—that one’s spouse be a genuine believer. It really is that simple: there is no Christian moral imperative to preserve such things as skin color or any other “biological” characteristic, nor are there prohibitions against people from different nations marrying. There are all sorts of cultural differences that may exist between spouses, and no doubt these sometimes create challenges in a marriage, but there simply is no biblical prohibition against people who have non-sinful differences marrying each other. We may not forbid what God allows.8

## The Church

Some kinists seem to be unwilling to state flatly that churches have a moral mandate to practice racial segregation. However, kinists routinely argue that intentional racial segregation in the church is not inherently wrong and that it is also prudent.9 In addition to the clear prohibitions of partiality, which would apply to racial partiality as much as any other reason for being partial, the Bible is clear that the church is not defined by, or restricted to, ties of natural kinship. Faith in Jesus Christ makes one a son or daughter of God (Gal. 3:24–26). To place any other restriction on Christian fellowship is implicitly to deny the gospel (Gal. 2:14). This is why Paul writes in Galatians 3:28 that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Paul, of course, does not mean that these distinctions no longer exist in the world, nor that these distinctions or the authority relations among them are abolished: there are still Jews and Greeks, servants and masters, and men and women in the world. Paul does mean, however, that these distinctions cannot serve as the bond of Christian fellowship in the church. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that, and any attempt to build up a new wall separating genuine Christians from each other in the church is therefore wrong.

Churches in different places normally reflect the demographics of that place. A church in Kenya is unlikely to look like a church in Singapore, Siberia, or South Carolina. Contrary to the claims of those influenced by Critical Race Theory, there is nothing inherently wrong with this fact. A non-diverse church is not in sin for lacking diversity, just like a very diverse church is not faithful to the Lord because it is diverse. Faithfulness to the Lord is the only biblical imperative. Nonetheless, churches may not create unbiblical hindrances to Christian fellowship (such as racial barriers), and certainly have no biblical mandate to seek to keep churches segregated according to specific racial demographics.

## The Nation

Older forms of kinism were focused on marriage and the church. Newer forms include the nation in their scope and argue that racial separation is part of God’s good creational design in that realm. One reason kinism appears plausible to some is because it latches itself onto other valid cultural critiques. For example, kinists will speak of the harm done to nations by the philosophy of multiculturism, wherein all cultures must be treated as equally valid and good. Reading many kinists, one would think that the only way to oppose multicultural ideology, or various forms of leftism in society, is to become a kinist. This is sleight of hand. There are many ideological currents today that should be rejected, multicultural ideology among them. As was discussed above, not all national (and sub-national) cultures are equally good. Modern multiculturalism as an ideology is a subterfuge with one genuine goal: the subversion of cultures derived from the peoples of Europe.

It should also be noted that it is wrong to force texts that speak to the breaking down of boundaries in the church onto the realm of civil society—texts like Galatians 3:28. Such texts have nothing to do with, for example, a nation’s immigration policies, and on this point, nations are free to let across their borders, and to grant citizenship, to however many or few they desire. What should be sought in any nation is the implementation of impartial justice for all within that nation’s boundaries.

However, even in the realm of the nation there is no moral imperative to preserve “racial purity” or any such thing, though a nation is perfectly right to prioritize the wellbeing its own citizens, and to seek to preserve its own distinctive national culture (insofar as that culture is good and in harmony with divine justice). Preserving such good things is a way in which the civil magistrate is meant to be “God’s servant for your good” (Rom. 13:4).

## Conclusion

Although kinism remains a small movement—with vocal proponents who can likely be counted on two hands, despite their online visibility—it can cause significant damage in churches and institutions and must be opposed. At the same time, it should be addressed as part of a much larger issue: the widespread acceptance of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Because CRT acts as the mirror image of kinism by promoting its own form of racial partiality—and now dominates nearly every sphere of society while infecting many churches—Reformed churches must exercise heightened vigilance in combating it alongside kinism. Christians must stand against sinful racial partiality in all its forms.

The solution to racial partiality on the “left” is not racial partiality on the “right.” When a Christian is sinned against, he must not sin in return. The solution to racial partiality is to seek the impartial justice of God in all of our interactions with others and not to despair at the seeming triumph of the wicked: “Fret not yourself because of evildoers; be not envious of wrongdoers! For they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb” (Psa. 37:1). “The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming” (Psa. 37:12–13). This is why Paul can write in Romans 12:17 that the Christian must “repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.” In this he was simply following the teaching of Christ: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you” (Luke 6:27–28). We all must do the same, even as we seek to see justice done in this world (Rom. 13:1–4).