Spencer suggested using the diagnostic to determine if the membership process should be slowed, not shut down. Sounds reasonable and wise to me, so the leven doesn’t spread. Nonetheless, the bar for membership ought to be somewhat low—a credible profession of faith. But, this specific diagnostic is necessary for officers’ interviews/applications, at least until this awful fad passes.
What or who convinced you of this?
I have been convinced of this for years. I read E Michael Jones years ago on the revolutionary spirit. I have also observed it over the years of my life. George Soros anyone? I don’t want to live my life as a victim though. I think it perfectly fine to acknowledge true things.
John Frame agrees with me:
Another kind of belief that is sometimes called racist is the belief that disproportionate numbers of people in a particular racial group are guilty of some kind of wrongdoing. Earlier we discussed belief in the moral superiority of one group over another. Here I am interested in something somewhat different. The present question is an empirical one. It is not a question of overall moral superiority, but of specific practices. Nor am I here concerned, as I was earlier, with historical grievances. Rather, I here speak of present grievances.
For example, it is quite evident that among people living in the United States illegally, a disproportionate number are Latino. Americans prominent in the Mafia are mainly of Sicilian ancestry. The defendants at the Nuremberg trials were predominantly German. Recent terrorists have been predominantly Muslim. The number of illegitimate births is disproportionately high in the black community. And slave owners were predominantly white, as are most white-collar criminals in our time.
Scripture does not dispute the fact that certain kinds of sins abound in certain national groups and result in the judgment of those nations. The Canaanites worshiped idols, and their culture degenerated into the worst forms of wickedness. Israel was not better than the Canaanites, but at one point in history, the iniquity of the Canaanites was judged to be full.
People are often judged as racist for holding such empirical beliefs. Yet, ironically, pleas for more border security are often attacked as “anti-Hispanic,” and cries for stiffer penalties against violent crime are often stigmatized as “anti-black.” Some attack the very phrase “law and order” as a “code word for racism.” Thus the victim groups themselves recognize their own disproportionate involvement in some of the problems of society.
It is time for greater honesty about these matters, even when that honesty requires us to reflect critically upon ourselves and our own people—as when Jesse Jackson, as noted earlier, confessed to his own fear of black-on-black crime.
It is not wrong to recognize these realities for what they are. We must not use them as excuses for racial prejudices, however. It should not be assumed that all Mexican-Americans are here illegally, any more than that all Italian-Americans are connected with the Mafia. But we should, in humility, recognize the sins that are characteristic of our own groups and exhort one another to repent of them. It is, of course, easier and more credible for us to deal with the sins of our own races and nationalities than to deal with the sins of other races and nationalities.
BTW I wrote the following social media post in 2017:
A Christian cannot have hatred towards ethnic Jews because to do so would be to betray our Lord Jesus who was one and to deny the gospel which is for the Jew first and then the Gentile.
A Christian cannot support Judaism because to do so would be to betray our Lord Jesus which Judaism blasphemes and to deny the gospel which is the only way of salvation for the Jew or Gentile.
Nor should a Christian turn a blind eye to how many Jews who hate God have worked to destroy a Christian worldview in our nation and constantly seek to promote views that are contrary to the best interests of Christians and to the nation generally.
Finally, every Christian should be reminded to pray for Jews and to do them good as we are commanded by the Lord to pray on behalf of all people and to do good to all.
Generalizations are not wrong, but conspiracy theories that have a track record of making guys neo-nazis, those are wrong. A man can hold to your 2017 social media post, but if a man holds to the conspiracy theory outlined by Spencer, he needs to be rescued. One is humble and leads to evangelism, the other is proud and leads to murder.
Pastor, it may not be a question you’d want to ask right out, but if red flags were evident, why not? How will we know if red flags are present, if some probing isn’t done? We’d ask a man about sexual sin before church membership, or any other in-dwelt sin. If we know a certain demographic of Christian men are being swayed by a line of reasoning which may have a sprinkling of truth here and there, but at its root it was rotten, why would we not probe?
It could be that ingrained naziism was unearthed, in which case pumping the brakes on church membership would simply be wise so as to not spread the leaven through the church.
It could be that this man has simply been led astray a bit and could be led back to the scriptures. In this case, maybe we tap the brakes a few times, with membership still on the table.
Any number of possibilities exist in terms of the baggage a man may bring to the church.
I remember am man telling me once “you made your bed and now you have to lie in it.”
Never has this reality been so evident in my life than when I observe the good, bad, and ugly of a church attempting to live in fellowship with one another.
In my opinion, if we are talking about additional hurdles to jump over regarding church membership, the proliferation of this ideology in a church would be a massive hurdle to non white Christians.
Love,
I get what you are saying. I think there isn’t a hard distinction. The conspiracy theory might be getting at something that is true. But lets suppose its a hard distinction. What is the answer?
I think there is a hair on fire response to men hearing about these issues or talking about the issue of race that is counterproductive. It just wants to shut it all down. It also broad brushes and can’t check the differences between say Corey Mahler and Stephen Wolfe. There is a world of difference between the two. But if we just broad brush it all and don’t give the truth in our teaching, I don’t think it is helpful. If someone says that I can’t say something I observe to be true such as that there are Jews working to undermine the west, I am tempted to make that my soapbox. If someone broadbrushes different things together just to dismiss it all and I know there is a difference, I am going to lose faith in that person to accurately state the truth.
I understand there is a real issue out there and have been going at it in social media posts, in group chats, and through podcasts. I am going to be teaching this Sunday in Sunday School on the issue of race and immigration. I just think there is division happening and its not all one way. Some of the division is being caused by overreactive pastors who haven’t truly dived into the issues. And its making men under them skittish.
I don’t completely disagree with you. If there are red flags and it looks like this man really is a nazi then we should ask. But thinking of someone who we both know who was a new believer, you might overlook these issues for a while as you disciple him as a member. That is with the man I am talking about, the nazi thing was a symptom of other deep seated issues which we were trying to get at. Maybe we could have saved ourselves the headache by just using that to keep him out.
This article was excellent Matt, thank you
Good, clarifying, insightful, rather amazing work from @jacobgonzales on this topic that pushes the dialogue forward:
With no disrespect to the Speaker and her husband, those who lie in state receive honors. Yet here we have a dog.
This is rebellion against God’s order of creation. It is an intentional denial of man alone being created in the image of God. This rebellion is as much inside as outside the Christian church today. Preach and teach against it. Yes, it will really anger the sheep, but even Caesar rebuked it:
“CÆSAR once, seeing some wealthy strangers at Rome, carrying up and down with them in their arms and bosoms young puppy-dogs and monkeys, embracing and making much of them, took occasion not unnaturally to ask whether the women in their country were not used to bear children; by that prince-like reprimand gravely reflecting upon persons who spend and lavish upon brute beasts that affection and kindness which nature has implanted in us to be bestowed on those of our own kind.”
-Plutarch’s Lives, “Pericles” (HT Jonathan)
One dear brother commented: “Granted, nationalism can be used for evil, and has been throughout history. Obviously I don’t agree with all forms of nationalism, and some forms are overtly wicked. But the improper use of a thing does not negate its proper use. Putting the interests of our own country first does not mean we invade, exploit or subjugate other nations.”
I respond: It’s the priority of the nation that is sinful, and has been for many decades here in the US. What men don’t want to admit or allow themselves to fear and thus warn others against is how constant nationalism has been cover for great and terrible evil. It’s natural for worldlings to give supreme allegiance to their nation, but in the Church? Seriously? Do we not recognize how allowing nationalism into the church inevitably compromises and corrupts the Lordship of Jesus Christ there?
How many nations and the evil done by supposed Christians under the guise of simple patriotism which has been on display across history can we claim to be “anomalies” and move on, unheeding? Nationalism is a terrible danger to the Church, and for this reason I was extremely careful on holidays such as the Fourth of July, not allowing the typical patriotism small-town America loved in past years into our worship.
Maybe the most common fight in churches across the mid-twentieth Protestant church was whether or not there would be an American flag in the sanctuary; and if there was a Christian flag there also, the relative placement of the two. That fight led to a predecessor of mine three before me being fired, and always it was the pastors standing against the civil religion which is nationalism’s fruit.
I keep wondering how in the world Christians today have such short memories or limited knowledge of the terrible evils Christians have joined in for the sake of nationalism. Maybe the frequency of the evils of nationalism is helpful to us simply by documenting how constant the church is in her own and her pastors’ hankering after social acceptance and political power. Love,
“I don’t care if there’s a male or a female in the cockpit….”
Is this what passes for a Christian Nationalist leading with Christian values? Lol.
Gorge Orwell warned us that the changing of language comes with the changing of morality.
While I appreciate the value you found in this article from Joel Ellis, I wanted to share a few thoughts that might shed additional light on his background—things you may not have been fully aware of when you recommended his work.
Joel Ellis has a significant past in the Churches of Christ almost as long as in the OPC and was involved in the Restoration Movement. From what I understand, the COC and Restoration movement emphasize ideas like baptismal regeneration—the belief that baptism itself brings about salvation—and tend to reject formal creeds, preferring a so called “Bible-only” approach.
It struck me that this background might have influenced some of Ellis’s more current theological positions. For instance, he affirmed the 2007 Joint Statement on Federal Vision, which, as you know, is known for its heavy focus on the sacraments and a covenant theology that muddies the waters on justification. His writings also lean into sacramentalism and covenant renewal worship.
What’s more, Reformation OPC, where Ellis served, left the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in 2024 to join the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which makes me wonder about Ellis’s current standing and how his past and present affiliations tie together.
I don’t mean to suggest his article lacks merit—clearly. But as a layman, I just wanted to raise these points for everyone’s consideration.
As for the discussion of Christian nationalism…it is to conservative churches, what the BLM was to liberal churches. Both are God’s judgement on the pulpits who have stood silently by as the nation falls further and further into humanism to the left and to the right.
While I’m equally concerned about Christian nationalism, part of me wants to take my seat above Nineveh for the next four years like the left did, but I guess that’s why I’m not a Pastor and certainly no prophet.
Honestly, I don’t think there is any really risk of the Christian right going so far off the rails as did the left. That doesn’t mean they don’t need to be hedged in, but how can we possibly complain about the gains made in discussions of gender, abortion, and the likes. These certainly weren’t won by the more reasonable men of faith.
Hi Ken,
I considered mentioning the cautions you just laid out, but decided not to since his piece I shared was quite good. Ellis has good pastoral sensibilities on this issue, seeing right through these teachers.
As was pointed out early on in this thread, we don’t have to agree with everything someone teaches to benefit from them when they are right. If even CREC Federal Visionists can see through this junk and call it out, then certainly other men ought to be able to.
Not so sure I agree. Our concern is not primarily with whether or not this movement will have worse consequences than its counterpart (BLM). Our concern is for the souls of the men getting sucked into it, along with the souls of their families. This is not simply an ideological battle (I’m not saying you think this), but a personal one with real flesh and blood church members being deceived and stollen away.
If I understand you, you believe these men are making gains on gender/abortion/etc. But I don’t see it that way. They are simply leeching off the good men they learned from – the reasonable men of faith – often offering a perverted form of what they learned (e.g. hyper-patriarchy). Still, we ought to give praise to God for any good that may come from their witness, insofar that it is true to Scripture, and even though it may be from wrong motives (Phil. 1:15).
I have been (slowly) reading The History of the Reformation in Europe at the Time of Calvin for a year, and it is full of information on the reformers views of government reform alongside and intermixed with Evangelical reform of the heart.
This is from my reading today, regarding the Reformation of England, which is often attributed to Henry VIII and his infidelity and desire for power and divorce. D’Aubigné says otherwise:
Between these two parties a third appeared, on whom the bishops and nobles looked with disdain, but with whom the victory was to rest at last. In the towns and villages of England, and especially in London, were to be found many lowly men, animated with a new life—poor artisans, weavers, cobblers, painters, shopkeepers—who believed in the Word of God and had received moral liberty from it. During the day they toiled at their respective occupations; but at night they stole along some narrow lane, slipped into a court, and ascended to some upper room in which other persons had already assembled. There they read the Scriptures and prayed. At times even during the day, they might be seen carrying to well-disposed citizens certain books strictly prohibited by the late cardinal. Organised under the name of ‘The Society of Christian Brethren,’ they had a central committee in London and missionaries everywhere, who distributed the Holy Scriptures and explained their lessons in simple language. Several priests, both in the city and country, belonged to their society.
This Christian brotherhood exercised a powerful influence over the people, and was beginning to substitute the spiritual and life-giving principles of the Gospel for the legal and theocratic ideas of popery. These pious men required a moral regeneration in their hearers, and entreated them to enter, through faith in the Saviour, into an intimate relation with God, without having recourse to the mediation of the clergy; and those who listened to them, enraptured at hearing of truth, grace, morality, liberty, and of the Word of God, took the teachings to heart. Thus began a new era. It has been asserted that the Reformation entered England by a back-door. Not so; it was the true door these missionaries opened, having even prior to the rupture with Rome preached the doctrine of Christ.* Idly do men speak of Henry’s passions, the intrigues of his courtiers, the parade of his ambassadors, the skill of his ministers, the complaisance of the clergy, and the vacillations of parliament: we too shall speak of these things; but above them all there was something else, something better—the thirst exhibited in this island for the Word of God, and the internal transformation accomplished in the convictions of a great number of its inhabitants. This it was that worked such a powerful revolution in British society.
J. H. Merle D’aubigné D.D., History of the Reformation in Europe in the Time of Calvin, vol. 4 (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1866), 7–8.
