Race, Immigration, and the Church

The Public Square
1

Dear brothers,

This past month, I have been teaching through different issues that I think need some clarity. The first Sunday I taught on homosexuality and the bible. We dealt with how modern Christians sound so different than older Christians on the topic. We looked at the damage it does to the body, mind, soul of a person and to the social order. We looked at what scripture has to say and finally answered objections to the Bible.
Last Sunday, I taught on how to answer the Muslim. We have a new mosque in Jeffersonville and I want our people to be equipped to deal with objections to the trinity and deity of Christ.

This coming Sunday, I am going to be teaching on the issue of race, immigration, and segregation in the church. I thought I would upload my lesson plans here. One, I hope they may be helpful to people thinking through these issues. Two, I’d like to be open to correction or improvement before Sunday.

I apologize for typos in advance and for the length of the document. I may end up splitting it into two classes.

Race, Immigration, and the Church.pdf (326.3 KB)

2

One thing I would get your people to think about: the opportunities for the Gospel which inbound immigration presents. People in their ‘home’ cultures are often quite closed off to the Gospel, but once outside their home cultures - the Gospel may be able to ‘land’ much more easily. One example - Japanese people who come to faith in Christ are far more likely to do so outside Japan than in it. The same applies in reaching out to Muslims.

1 Like
3

Check out this chap for some insights on this topic:

1 Like
4

Pastor Joseph,

Today I was doing some thinking about the Christian nationalist movement in our churches. I think asking some gut-check questions of those who promote and lead this movement would bring some clarity. My post is informed by the Dionne/Shiflett paper posted in another thread, and thinking through some implications.

I will put forward some hypothetical scenarios, from which I will draw out questions CN guys would do well to ponder and offer honest answers. Even if it’s only an interior mental exercise, these kinds of questions can be helpful in examining motives.

Scenario One

Suppose certain racial minority groups, both immigrant and native, who are known to frequent abortuaries more frequently than whites, suddenly decided to keep their children and raise them in large numbers. The reasons for doing so might vary between legal restrictions in red states, a renewed sense of shame over bloodshed, or a feeling of pride in their ethnic heritage that they wished to see passed down. Suppose it goes together with reduced use of abortifacent contraception among these same groups, so the numbers involved would be significant. As this change is happening, the white birthrate stays the same.

Would our Christian nationalist influencers approve of this change? Bear in mind, fewer black and brown abortions mean more black and brown people. It means the demographic percentage of whites declines, while the nonwhite percentage increases. Fewer abortions mean “demographic transformation” of a kind. It means more of the sorts of people who we’re told commit more crime, vote the wrong way, threaten cultural stability and carry around a below- average IQ.

Forced to choose, do our Christian nationalist influencers conclude that concerns about demographic transformation must yield to the greater good of more people being born, or is the real answer something less than unfeigned celebration of a positive pro-life trend? Perhaps some clearing of the throat and scratching of the chin?

My sense of it is that the Anon army out there would have a lot of trouble letting go of their particularist racial emphasis in favor of a universalist pro-life emphasis. Do you understand why I would think so? I think it’s obvious this is not a question these guys want to stare squarely in the face.

Scenario Two

Say that Christian nationalism really takes Evangel churches by storm. Young men start taking a great deal of pride in their (white) ethnic heritage, and begin to see, per Christian nationalist influencers, the dangers of immigration. Not even just the dangers of immigration, but the deliberately planned replacement of whites by Western elites with nonwhite immigrant populations. Leave aside the plausibility of the conspiracy; assume our young guys start to believe it.

What happens when a man of nonwhite heritage, who may be an immigrant or the son of an immigrant, visits our churches? My question is not, “Do we welcome the stranger?” That should be an easy one. My question is, if we have trained ourselves to think of immigrants as unwitting pawns of the elite-driven conspiratorial replacement of our race during the week, can we quickly shift gears and welcome the stranger on Sunday morning? Can we trust the average young male church member to do the mental jiu jitsu of separating the individual from the group, the part from the whole?

Forced to choose, which do we go with? Do we talk less about demographic replacement, in order to place more emphasis on welcoming the stranger? Or does the concern about demographic replacement rise to a greater level? What do Christian nationalist influencers say? What is their gut-level, instinctive response?

What if the individual becomes more than the individual, but becomes a family? What if that family invites other families of the same ethnic group? If CN-influenced young white men visit our church, and see the percentage of nonwhites increasing, may these young men make the same conspiratorial accusation against the session that they do against civil rulers? Meaning, that they accuse the session of wanting to replace whites in the demographics of the church? Is the accusation fair? Would such accusations promote the peace of the church?

Scenario Three

Suppose the daughter of a fervent Christian nationalist falls for a suave nonwhite male believer while away at school. This young man is immature and sinful in the ways young men usually are, but he seems to be a genuine believer and prospective provider.

Say this CN man has really hammered home, over the course of his daughter’s home education, the importance of cultural preservation through lineage. That it does matter to the average man to have grandchildren who look like him. Say she is very aware of dear old dad’s opinions as she approaches her father with some trepidation, but finds the charms of this young man irresistible?

Throw in another hypothetical. Say this daughter will be dramatically more likely to fornicate with a future boyfriend if the CN father denies this match on his natural affection CN grounds? Suppose this isn’t necessarily known to the CN father, but is known to his pastor? What should this father do? Which is the greater good: avoiding fornication or honoring natural affection and preserving the continued existence of this family’s white grandchildren? If we have to choose, is it going to be racial impurity or sexual impurity?

How would our Christian nationalist influencers answer this question? An unambiguous “Yes, marry the goofy brown dude now and avoid likely fornication later.” Call me quick on the trigger, but I have my doubts about our Christian nationalist influencers. When they need to make money, when they need eyeballs and butts-in-seats, they’re eager to throw out the racial red meat. They don’t seem as eager to preach on sexual impurity. How many chapters did Stephen Wolfe devote to sexual purity in his book? His podcast? His interviews about the book?

Scenario Four

Suppose an enterprising social scientist undertakes a massive study to show that race, IQ and sexual temptation (orientation) are linked. He finds that the higher your IQ, and the whiter the skin, the more likely you are to be LGBTQ. There is compelling proof of a racial component to homosexual sin. We’ve both protested some Pride parades. Does it sound that far-fetched? Not fake and gay, but real and gay.

How excited would our Christian nationalist influencers be to promote this bit of race science? Would the white guys-are-gay stats get the same buzz as the blacks-are-more-criminal stats? “Oh man, we really have to share the truth of these IQ-to-sodomy correlations! The world must know how many standard deviations more gay whites are than blacks!”

Of all the questions/scenarios I’ve posed, isn’t this one the easiest to answer? And doesn’t it uncover a telling bit of hypocrisy about “race realism” science? Again, call me quick on the draw, but I don’t think these CN influencers are into the dispassionate study of intelligence as much as they are eager to find a ready weapon to better put down those on the wrong racial team. I’d wager the same is true of our young men taking in the race realist edgelord content.

1 Like
5

Dear Ben,

Thank you for taking the time to think deeply about the implications of Christian nationalism and for posing these hypothetical questions. I get it that you’re trying to test the coherence and heart behind the movement, and I appreciate the invitation to do some mental and spiritual gut checks. Though I also think that you are primarily offering up false dilemmas that try to force binary decisions. But this does give help in trying to work through how to help immature believers and handle these issues.

I’ll respond to your scenarios in order, with the goal not of defending “influencers” per se, but of articulating what I believe to be a biblically faithful and intellectually honest position.

⸻

Scenario One: More Non-White Babies, Fewer Abortions

You ask if we would celebrate a surge in black or brown babies being born while the white birthrate remains low. My answer is: Yes, I rejoice when image-bearers of God are born instead of murdered.

Christians should value every human life and be thrilled to see repentance from bloodshed. That said, recognizing this as a moral good does not mean abandoning concern over national demographic shifts, especially if those shifts are driven by mass immigration or state-sponsored incentives that result in the cultural erasure of a historic people.

Being pro-natalist and pro-life is not in contradiction with preferring the continuity and health of one’s own people. I don’t have to hate the growth of one people to mourn the decline of my own. A father rejoices when his neighbor’s son gets married, but still weeps if his own son is falling away. Natural affection makes that not only understandable but good.

⸻

Scenario Two: Immigrants in the Pew

You raise a fair concern about whether the rhetoric around immigration and demographic replacement could poison our ability to welcome real people on Sunday morning. My answer: if our theology is solid, it won’t.

It’s exactly what I tried to teach in my lesson above. I’d like to see interaction with that.

Here’s the key distinction: the Church is not the Nation. The Church is a supernatural kingdom drawn from all nations. The Nation is a natural institution, rooted in family, kin, and shared heritage. You can oppose mass immigration that displaces a nation’s people while still embracing the immigrant as a brother in Christ. We are commanded to do so. I think of how Stonewall Jackson worked to establish Sunday school for black people.

You know our church, the one most open to Christian nationalism in the presbytery is welcome to people of all races. We have interracial marriages and children. If a man, woman or family of another race joins us, loves the Lord, and wants to be part of the covenant community, they are welcome—fully. That doesn’t invalidate national borders or erase real differences. It simply reflects that the Church is Christ’s nation.

Will young men struggle with this balance? Some might. That’s why they need pastors, who love them. Who won’t just cast aspersions at them and constantly harp against them but who also will speak truth to them. We have to disciple them. Would we have patience for a black man who wants to see his people preserved and cared for? What about a chinese msn? I think many churches would tolerate and celebrate those men but then fall apart about a white man who might feel that way.

I’ve watched our brothers in Shelbyville deal well with these issues and speak openly like Christian nationalists and yet have a diverse congregation for their location. They have black and Hispanic families.

⸻

Scenario Three: The Daughter and the “Goofy Brown Dude”

This one is loaded, but let me get to the point. Fathers have God-given authority over their daughters, and they can and should consider a suitor’s character, doctrine, and yes, even cultural compatibility. None of that is racist or sinful. A father who denies a marriage based on real concerns—including how differences may affect the raising of grandchildren—is within his rights.

I believe the old and New Testament uphold the father’s authority to give his daughter away or not. The Apostle Paul makes that clear in 1 Corinthians. I know that makes me to be considered hyper patriarchy by some but convince me from scripture.

That said he should act from wisdom and love. If the young man is truly a Christian, and the only objection is racial, then the father maybe erring. If he sees immaturity or poor compatibility, he has the right to say no. If the daughter disobeys and sins sexually, that is her sin, not proof the father should have folded. The fear of fornication is not a reason to abandon paternal duty.

Now, if the pastor knows the father’s refusal is inflaming rebellion that could be handled more wisely, he should counsel the father—but not override his authority. I’m glad you’re thinking through it, but beware the trap of trading one sin for another in hypotheticals.

⸻

Scenario Four: Gays and IQ

This is a straw man with a sarcastic smirk. But I’ll play along: if a study showed that white people were more likely to be tempted toward homosexual sin, it wouldn’t change a thing about the biblical stance. We call sin what it is, regardless of skin color.

The truth is, Christian nationalists do preach against sexual sin. It’s been a cornerstone of the movement—restoring Christian order in households, opposing degeneracy, and calling for biblical manhood. That some influencers don’t harp on sexual purity in every podcast doesn’t prove hypocrisy—it reflects that different issues are being addressed at different times. But look at the whole body of teaching, and you’ll see calls to repentance on all fronts. In fact I don’t know a single Christian nationalist who hadn’t called for sodomy to be criminalized and for abortion yo be treated like murder. Stephen Wolfe’s book I remember saying as much.
⸻

Final Thought:

The Christian faith is not colorblind, nor is it color-obsessed. God made the nations, and He did so with purpose. Love for your people is not hate for others. Protecting a culture is not rejecting the Church universal. And raising hard questions is good. Perhaps there would be people who couldn’t answer these questions well. Maybe they could be helpful to ask a man liking Christian nationalism in the church. I’d bet that they would have similar answers to me but maybe I’m wrong.
You’ve helped bring out some important tensions. I hope my responses helped show how to navigate them in truth and love.

In Christ,

Pastor Joseph Spurgeon

2 Likes
6

Dear Ben I also sent your message to ref church pastors to see what they would say.

7

Ben, thanks for these questions.
It seems like the thrust of the scenarios you have presented is the overarching question of “How do we hold in tension a theoretical CN and actually live in the real world?” where things go contrary to our plans.

This is where I am struggling to open up to the CN propositions as I understand them. It seems like things such as hospitality and fellowship because of who we are in Christ, will be made more difficult with the added hurdle of having to nuance and parse every little detail about what a particular church may or may not hold to about race.
I understand that diving into these issues and discipling people through them is the work of the Pastors and Elders, but it seems like this issue is THE issue, THE litmus test, for many young men, and watch out if you have a different take. Seriously, race and skin color, while clearly God designed, aren’t things I walk around thinking about all the time. But for some CN’s, it seems like a fixation.

I know there are people struggling financially, struggling to purchase homes, feeling as if their very thoughts are being declared sinful by their purple haired DEI directors at work. Believing, probably correctly, that wages are low, and there is financial suffering because of illegal immigration. I operate in that world and am sympathetic. Are these things anything new?
What I fear the CN movement is doing in part, is setting up a boogeyman to which all the anger can be directed.
Our culture didn’t get here in a vacuum.
Seems to me that somewhere along the way the Church left a void that bad actors have now filled.
The CN response seems to be from my perspective a response of scorched earth against all the tools the devil has schemed to bring this about, and little focus on church repentance.

I see the burning cars.
I see the looting.
I see the upside down flags.
It really pisses me off.
Then I remember that these people, for all their differences, have likely been influenced by the same swamp us white people have: no fathers, feminism, no discipline, etc.
Then I’m still pissed. But, I remember that they need the gospel. I don’t believe the gospel and a nation enforcing it’s immigration laws are opposed, but If I forget the gospel part, they suddenly stop being image bearers created in God’s image, and are now monsters to be gotten rid of.
No, I’m not for open borders, and I’m all about deporting the criminal element. I’m also about not adding one more stumbling block which would hinder the gospel, and it seems that a Church which leads with CN is leading with something that will drive people away, most of whom have no clue what they are even talking about.

There are real issues, but are they anything new?
There is pressure, tension, and in some cases persecution from our current government towards Christians trying to live faithful, there are real enemies.
There are bad actors in this country who would love to see another flag flying.
But, as the Church, what should our response be?

CN seems to miss the fact that Jesus said we would be hated, Jesus said “blessed are you….”, that we are called to patiently endure persecution.

CN doesn’t seem to have patience for this approach. Pray? I’ve seen people laugh at that suggestion.

Again, thanks Ben, and thank you Pastor Joseph for responding to his inquiry.

1 Like
8

Dear Brother Aaron,

Thank you and Ben for your responses. I appreciate your willingness to ask questions, and share where you are at. I think you both recognize that what we’re dealing with here isn’t just a set of abstract propositions but a real challenge of holding truths in tension and living them out in a cultural context that has done everything it can to deny them.

You’re right to say this issue has become THE issue for many, and for reasons that are layered and complex. That tends to happen with controversy. At some point, a topic becomes so front-and-center that divisions start to form and lines are drawn. It is not always because of the topic itself, but because of what it exposes underneath. I don’t know that we can easily say who is at fault when this happens. The sides become entrenched, and the issue takes on a symbolic weight. That’s the world we’re in.

I see people trying to recover good Reformed teaching on the civil government and also deal with issues involving race that have been forgotten or outright denied. There is a whole context to the current interest that means its hard for us to not speak on it. I get a little defensive myself because this is something I have been thinking about since seminary. I have always had an interest in the intersection between our religion and politics. I’ve been influenced by many sources but what I’m pressing for is a recovery of basic biblical truths: that nations exist by God’s design, that peoples are real and precious, and that civil rulers have duties under God to promote the good and restrain evil all for their own people. The nation of Israel was not to elect foreigners but a King from among them. David was said to do righteousness and justice for his people. Our leaders should do what is best for Americans. Defining American used to be really easy. But because of the last 20 years or so it has been made more difficult. That is part of the reason for trying to figure out these issues. None of that undermines the gospel.

To defend Stephen Wolfe, in a recent interview, he noted that he’s not just talking about “white identity” merely but American identity. He pointed out that your “people” may not simply be people who look like you across the country, but the ones you’ve grown up with—shared life, customs, loves, burdens. In my lesson the example of having more closer relationship to your neighbors of Mexican descent was his point. But the whole topic is difficult.

You mentioned that CN can feel like a “scorched earth” approach. And you’re probably right that, in some circles, that’s what it looks like. But I also think what we’re witnessing is a generation waking up to truths long buried, truths that are uncomfortable in our late-modern empire. We don’t live in a cohesive nation anymore. We live in an economic zone, an administrative empire, and a therapeutic culture that punishes loyalty to land, people, and God.

Trying to recover those loyalties is going to be messy.

You’re absolutely right that the church’s mission is to proclaim the gospel—and that must remain front and center. But we also have to reckon with the fact that many will reject the gospel, and not just privately. They will organize to undermine it, suppress it, and legislate against it. That’s where civil government comes in. Its role is not to save, but to protect. That’s why many of our men are concerned—not because they want to save the nation by force, but because they see what happens when no one stands up to evil. Again you can’t read Calvin, Knox, or Luther without them going off into civil matters. They didn’t share our views of strict separation.

So yes, we live in this world, but we also long for the one to come. And Jesus is King over both. That means we’re called to be faithful in both. We endure persecution when it comes, but we also pray for kings, we preach to nations, and we seek peace and justice where God has planted us.

I do think we need to avoid simplistic answers. One of the things I tried to do Sunday—whether I succeeded or not—is acknowledge just how difficult this issue is. It doesn’t fit neatly into a tweet. It requires patience, pastoral care, and a willingness to be misunderstood.

What I don’t want to happen is for this issue to become the only thing we talk about—or for it to become the test of fellowship. On the other hand, I also don’t want to see men or women working through it thoughtfully, or even landing on strong conclusions, only to be policed or rebuked for thinking “wrong thoughts.” That’s not the job of pastors. Yes, we guard doctrine. But that doesn’t mean micromanaging every political or cultural judgment that flows from a man’s honest efforts to be faithful. A man can have a strong opinion and still be a faithful brother. Consider how Jesus had both Simon the Zealot and Matthew the Tax Collector as disciples. Id love to have heard the debates between them. I bet Christ put up with a lot of foolishness to disciple them. I don’t know if when they both were called they both left behind their views. It was probably after years of work that they both became closer to the truth. So this is why for example I opposed that litmus test by Spencer in that article about the jews.

Frankly, I think it’s possible to blow up your church both by pressing these issues too hard and by being afraid to touch them at all. Pastors can overreact and underreact. My temptation might be to lean to the second. But I think we also can let hypotheticals cause us to veer off into ditches. That’s what the woke guys like David Platt did: they blew up their mostly white churches in the name of hypothetical racial reconciliation, not because black or brown people were being refused entry or were banging down the doors to get in, but because they wanted to appear virtuous. They ended up trying to force diversity. We should learn from their mistakes—not repeat them in reverse, but avoid their cowardice.

The claim that if we talk about immigration, nationhood, or demographics we’ll automatically become “unwelcoming” isn’t a serious standard. Of course we should be open to whoever God brings to us. But we shouldn’t make decisions about what we teach based on hypothetical optics. If God sends a flood of immigrants to our church, we should minister to them. If we do have people who are unhospitable and unwilling to minister to others of other races than of course we deal with them too.

I’ve heard pastors like Tim Bailey speak hard truths about black sin that I am sure people could take a racist and unwelcoming. But was it biblical? Absolutely. And of course I know Tim loves black people. If we’re all angry about the direction of our culture—good. There is righteous anger. And I want men to know it’s okay to feel it. But then we have to point them to the real answers. Not the fake gospel of rage and not the fake gospel of silence. The real gospel, in a real world, applied to real people.

You’re absolutely right: we need prayer. That should never be laughed off. But neither should courage. We need both.

So in summary, I feel the tension you all feel. I don’t know all the answers. I just don’t want to see us sweep all people trying to figure these things up in one big brush and through them out the door. I also don’t want this to be the thing we talk about endlessly.
It also might help you all to know I am in some chat groups with some of the men that are in the Christian nationalist movement and I push back on them the same way I do here.

Thanks again for your responses. I love you both and am grateful to labor alongside you.

love,
Joseph

9

Dear Ben and others:

I shared your questions with some Christian Nationalist friends and they were willing to respond. I’m sharing their responses here:

Brother,

I have not read the referenced paper by men in your presbytery. I’d be interested in looking at that if you’ll share it. If these are the “gut-check” questions it evokes, I can tell by this fruit that it must be full of mischaracterization and unhealthy fault-finding rather than a genuine assessment of Christian Nationalism. Be that as it may, I love your church and am happy to weigh in on the scenarios raised.

Scenario One:

If abortion were radically reduced among black and brown communities, I would praise God. Life is life. These are image bearers of God, and any reduction in bloodshed is a cause for rejoicing.

There is no tension between desiring a national culture rooted in Anglo-Protestant tradition and rejoicing in the repentance and fruitfulness of others. If God grants reformation across ethnic lines, our posture must be one of celebration.

Christian Nationalism, properly understood, is about righteousness and peace, not racial calculations. If someone imagines we’d rather preserve demographic ratios than see children live—they don’t know us. It’s frankly insulting to suggest it. And it’s clear to me that they certainly haven’t read what we’ve confessed in the Statement on Christian Nationalism.

Scenario Two:

The concern here seems to be that discussing immigration and demographic shifts will turn young men into hard-hearted ideologues incapable of loving individuals. That’s not what I’ve seen. Tanner and I did a podcast on our Christian duty to hate enemies (plural) and love your enemy (singular) that may be helpful to listen to. This distinction comes into play in this scenario as we can hate what mass immigration does to our nation—and speak about it—while serving the immigrant in front of us.

We are raising men to be principled and pastoral—men who can critique unjust immigration policy while warmly welcoming a brother in Christ, regardless of ethnicity. There’s no contradiction here. We believe in lawful borders and high-trust cultural norms. And we believe in the full inclusion of repentant sinners into Christ’s body.

If a legal immigrant comes into our church, we welcome him as a fellow citizen of heaven and help him assimilate into the dominate culture. We’re currently doing this with a young Egyptian man. He will start the process of citizenship this fall. If an immigrant were here unlawfully, we would call him to repentance—just like we would a thief or a liar. We would encourage him to turn himself in, go back to his own country.

The men of Ref are not confused about this distinction. They’re capable of holding both truth and love in their hands at the same time. That’s the Christian way.

Scenario Three

This one builds a strange and highly specific scenario—perhaps too specific. But let’s grant it for the sake of discussion.

If a father is concerned that his daughter might marry outside her ethnic group, he’s allowed to care about that. Scripture allows for love of people and place. But that concern must never eclipse the higher concern for godliness. A regenerate, faithful, Christ-exalting man—whatever his ancestry—should be received with joy over an unbeliever with matching skin.

Scenario Four

This final one reads more like a jab than a genuine question, but I’ll still respond.

When we cite crime statistics, it’s not to shame an ethnic group—it’s to call for order and justice. If white Americans were disproportionately committing violent crimes, we’d be saying the same things. If a study emerged showing that white people were more prone to certain sins, we’d discuss it honestly, too.

The question assumes that “race realism” is driven by animus. But for many of us, it’s driven by grief—grief over disorder, fatherlessness, murder, and social collapse. That’s not hatred. It’s actually love of neighbor. And love compels us to speak plainly when lives are being lost.

Yes, we want assimilation. Yes, we want cohesion. Yes, we want to preserve a Christian cultural heritage. But we also want repentance, justice, and salvation—for ALL people.

“Christian Nationalism” is a scare word—joined by an ever-expanding list of other scare words meant to keep Christians from loving their own nation, honoring their heritage, or even asking what righteousness looks like at a national level. We’re being ripped apart by warped views on ethnicity, guilt, identity, and power—none of which come from Scripture.

In their place, we’ve been offered a sterile, rootless Christianity that treats national loyalty as idolatry, border control as bigotry, and love of forefathers as latent white supremacy. But that’s not the historic Christian position. It’s not what the Reformers believed, it’s not what our confessions teach, and it’s not what Scripture requires.

We want our people to be just and impartial, yes—but also rooted, grateful, and wise. We want to raise men who can love their country without worshiping it, prefer their own people without despising others, and welcome the stranger without erasing what makes their household worth joining.

Christian Nationalism—rightly understood—is about bringing all things under the feet of Christ, including governments and cultures. It’s about seeing the law of God applied with equity and mercy. And it’s about doing that without apology, because Christ is King—not just of hearts, but of history, law, borders, and bloodlines.

Happy to discuss further anytime.

—Jerry

This is from a lay elder:

Scenario one response:

If this were to happen it would literally change nothing that I do or think. I would still fight and pray for a Christian nation with equal protection under the law and continue to argue for the maintenance of Anglo Protestant culture.

Of course I would rejoice that babies are not being murdered and I can guarantee that even guys as far right as Stone Choir would rejoice that babies were living instead of dying.

I want ALL babies to live and I want my nation to maintain its Anglo Protestant heritage and traditions.
There is no conflict here.
If someone thinks a Christian Nationalist is someone who would rather black babies be murdered so that there’s less of them, that’s not only a ridiculous thing to think but very insulting, especially for men like Dusty Deevers (a self proclaimed CN) who have fought for equal protection for the unborn for years.
I personally know of no one who would struggle with this question.
You can want your nation to maintain it heritage and traditions and want all babies to live.

Scenario two response:
The question is making something that’s actually very simple, incredibly complicated.

It incorrectly assumes:
That talking about the downside of demographic change is at odds with loving those in the body from any race or culture.

I want immigration to be extremely limited, even completely stopped for a long time, by the civil magistrate and so if someone comes into the body who is here illegally, I would require them to turn themselves in to the proper authorities just like I would if a church member stole a truck.
If they are here legally, my counsel to them would be to assimilate to Anglo Protestant culture as much as possible and I would rejoice in them doing that.

We talk about things like demographic change, the difficulty of interracial marriage/adoption, cultural and racial differences etc, on a regular basis and have done podcasts on all these topics while having Black, Hispanic, Asian and mixes in the congregation.
We also have four interracial marriages at church and talking about these thing both publicly and privately has not caused a problem.

Scenario three response:
Here we have a very bizarre situation.
A daughter is sent away all alone to a school (what’s up with that?) and allows a “young man’s charms” to outweigh honoring her father to the extent that she has completely fallen for him and will probably fornicate if she doesn’t get her way…this is a young lady that would just as likely marry a Muslim or a Jew.

The whole scenario is asking the wrong question based on bizarre hypotheticals.
The correct question is this: is it sinful for a Father to want his Daughter to marry within her own race/culture and if not, should she honor her father and not allow other men to pursue her?

If you asked me point blank if I would rather have a black son in law who was a solid believer over a white son in law who was an unbeliever, my instant response would be black boy.

The problem with that question is that I will never be in that situation as all of my daughters will know 10+ white Christian boys for every black Christian boy they know.
It’s an absurd question meant to be a gotcha but it isn’t.

Scenario four response:
This one assumes that people are sharing stats about the black murder rate because they have a problem with black people instead of assuming that they have a problem with murder and are seeking to be honest with where the problem is mostly coming from.
For example, a five year old black male is more likely to commit murder than a 20 year old white man.
That’s insane and points to a problem that MUST be addressed on a societal level.
Black on white rape numbers are horrific while white on black is statistically zero. Why?
I can’t speak for everyone but I’m genuinely asking these questions because I want a solution and am sick and tired of being gaslit on this issue.
There is something wrong in black culture and until we’re willing to honestly address the real issues, it will just get worse.
Bluntly, if things continue as they are we’re headed for a race war which would be a very horrible situation.

I understand the point of your hypothetical but it doesn’t work because studies have also shown that black men are more likely to be gay.

If a study came out that whites had a greater tendency to lack natural affection (one of the sins Paul lists in Romans 1) then other races (which does seem to to be the case) I would absolutely share that and honestly talk about what was causing it!

I think white people are too tolerant by far which is why we’ve let some of these problems get as bad as they are and if a study came out that we were the most apathetic race, I would share that like crazy and push for us to do better.

The question assumes we’re just looking for a way to put down black people but what if we’re just tired of black men killing people?

I don’t have time to talk about interracial divorce rates which are fascinating but I believe assimilation is possible and often a wonderful thing.

My great great grandfather on my mothers side was a dago who came over on a banana boat and he didn’t allow his children to speak Italian because they no longer considered themselves Italian but American.
They assimilated to British Protestant culture and were better off for it.

I want a Christian Nation that honors Christ.
I want my grandchildren to look like my ancestors.
I want societal cohesion.
I want high trust community for my children’s children.
I want assimilation for those who are here.
I want my nation to maintain its heritage/traditions.

I want all these things and hate no one.

Hope this was helpful.
God bless.

2 Likes
10

You had a Christian nation, and your fathers turned their back on God. You had a Christian nation, and your mothers killed their unborn children and went to work. You had a Christian nation, and your sisters and brothers chose lesbianism and sodomy, and apostasized. You had a Christian nation, and your father and mother chose to send their sons and daughters to their alma mater, a Christian college which has spent decades seducing the souls of sons and daughters of the church to rebellion against God, Scripture, and holiness. Your fathers and mothers had a Christian nation and chose pastors who would scratch their itching ears. Your aunts and uncles had a Christian nation and besotted themselves with celebrity Christians who earned their celebrity status by rebelling against God’s Word and Law, but subtly so that they didn’t lose your aunt and uncle as paying constituents and admirers. You had a Christian nation, but your fathers never stopped looking at pornography and divorcing their wives and never ever disciplining, let alone instructing, their sons and daughters. You had a Christian nation whose Christians chose and sent oversees as missionaries feminists who seduced poor foreigners to join their rebellion.

I could go on at great length, but it’s a fool’s errand. Christian nationalists maintain their marketing by pulling a veil over the Church’s degradation and betrayal of God and His Word and Truth which is presently everywhere, and has been going on for many decades. Proclaiming these truths gets you no book sales or conference registrations or young credulous men as admirers. Which is to say my judgment of Christian nationalists is that they never tell the truth about the past, and consequently should never be looked to for prognostication—let alone leadership—of the future.

Until we turn to reformation of ourselves, our families, and the Church (and I don’t mean the sort of reformation paedocommunionists think they have achieved, which is deformation), all the visioncasting that excites the credulous will come to less than nothing. Yes, we should confess our faith in the public square and vote and serve in office, but Christian nationalism is precisely what we long had, by another name and yet electorally, and our fathers squandered it just as our pastors and fathers continue to squander the Church’s faith and witness today. Love,

6 Likes
11

Yes, please have Jerry read the doc…

12

Dear Tim,
The men I shared this with and wrote that know all of what you said and are fighting against it. I think you are running a crusade against the men who are in agreement with you and are wanting to do something about it. The man who wrote what you quoted teaches and preaches truth. They pastor the people in their church and they also take the men out of the church. They have stood at pride parades, in front of abortion mills, outside of witch celebrations, and at their krogers every week. One went with me to Israel. They are good men doing that work.

Quite frankly here is what it looks like. Your generation was born into America that had a lot of those things and you all pissed it away. And now you sit back and tell young men that they are fools or worse sinful for wanting it. They are just visionary dreamers not calling for repentance. What are us sons supposed to do when the fathers as you said wasted it all away and then still attack us for not doing enough. Almost every Christian Nationalist I know has called the church to repentance. You have made Christian nationalists into the boogeyman, when the real problem isn’t the guys trying to restore things. It’s the ones fighting us every inch tooth and nail.

13

Dear Joseph, I know this is how you think, but it might help to focus your attention on that small word in the middle, “it.” Precisely what is “it” your father and I threw away?

This is what you and your zealous nationalistic friends either carefully or neglectfully avoid. This is where to focus. Nationalism is not the solution any wise Christian gives himself to promoting.

One other thing: although I believe in public protests and have often done them, they are never the reformation of the church which is infinitely more personal and difficult. The one is nothing like the other, and the fruit of the other is infinitely more than the fruit of the one.

Love,

2 Likes
14

They threw away having a Christian nation which is a good thing. They also threw away their posterity’s future. They threw away a lot of things. Including our nation.

I also don’t mean Pastor Tim that they only do public protests. I would argue that being at an abortion mill, gay pride parade, witch thing, or some other public place is not merely a protest. It is faithfulness to proclaim the gospel to the nations.

I think part of the problem we keep bumping heads on has to do with the mission of the church or at least our emphasis on it and how we see each others emphasis.

I believe the church’s mission is to disciple the world and to confront the evil of the world. Obviously we have a battle to fight our own flesh but that is a battle necessary to engage in the broader battle. In the same way that an army has to work on self-discipline so that it can fight in a war.

Sometimes it seems to me that you think (I know this is a straw man but bare with me brother, I am speaking about how I feel) the battle is all inward. It feels like a bunch of navel gazing and constantly attacking other brothers in Christ. It seems like you take a verse about judgement starting with the household of God (a verse about God allowing persecution on the early church) and make that into a mission for us to make sure happens. The only problem in the world is Christians and not just any Christians but those Christians who are closest to us in theology and practice and yet whom we have some differences with. They are the real reason everything sucks and so we have to fight them. They are all corrupt and until they repent there is nothing else to do. Yes you can do other stuff but that’s a distraction from the real work.

Now I know that hyperbole on my part but sometimes its how it comes across.

And for you I am sure it seems like that I or people like me only care about this world and this life. They have no concern for reforming the church and only can think politically or about trying to change the world. I’ll leave it to you to characterize how you think I am.

But I think we both ought to be careful how we characterize each other. I have a great love for the church as do the men I shared their responses above. I have been in the church they pastor and so have you actually. They are discipling men, exercising church discipline, and seeing real growth in their area.

15

You know I shared a detailed lesson above on the PDF. I was hoping to get feedback on that.

16

Dear Joseph,

Every generation pisses away what came before it (Exodus, Judges, Kings, Prophets, Gospels, Reformation, America). That’s the Biblical testimony, built on the foundation of original sin and human depravity. A particularly political ideology (+ a politically infused eschatology) appears to be blind to this historical reality and, therefore, seems fixated on perfecting society in the abstract rather than rescuing the perishing through the vocation of the Church to preach God’s Word and reform her people—which then would have some societal benefit. But whenever men have tried to engineer societal reform through their own effort, well, the results can be terrible. Again, that human depravity almost always derails such efforts.

I realize that my saying such things continues to be a frustration to you. And I see some of the potential contradictions in what I’m saying. Nonetheless, I maintain that the result of Christian political efforts will be what it has been in the past—nominalism, which is not Christianity at all. I have no idea what is the best approach to reforming a pagan nation. But what I would like to see is pastors learning to say in their lane (preaching and teaching the Word, fencing the Table, being unashamed of the ministerial and declarative authority of the church) because their lane is going to lead God’s people to inherit the earth.

And, when we are talking about “it” and the past, were we to time travel, we might find that many of those “its” are nominally Christian at best.

3 Likes
17

Dear Joseph, to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never characterized Joseph Spurgeon here or elsewhere on the socials. Maybe you resemble some of the things and people I’m warning men to avoid, but if so, I’m happy to be hitting my mark. So to devolve into “you, Joseph, are this; and I, Tim, am that” is not something I wish to do here. If you disagree with the arguments made, let’s do that publicly and, for the stuff you want to say in criticism of me personally, I’ll call you to listen, privately. Which I anticipate doing, by the way. With love,

1 Like
18

I’d immediately read it and have feedback I haven’t given yet, but which will be done privately, dear brother. Love,

19

I was speaking in these debates as between your position and my position. It wasn’t meant as a personal attack. Feel free to call anytime. I love you.

1 Like
20

I’m going to read the pdf and respond tonight or tomorrow, but I wanted to flag a couple things here publicly first.

  1. The responses you posted from this other church borders on confusing sociology with ontology. You/they might insist that’s not what they’re doing, but it sure looks like it. And some of is uncomfortably close to how RL Dabney argued. That’s concerning.

  2. Part of the ‘hair-on-fire’ reaction to these ideas is that we literally have neo-naziism making a resurgence in confessional Christianity. Sure, Wolfe and Mahler may be different (I’m not convinced they’re different enough to make me comfortable with Wolfe), but certainly the fruit they’re both producing looks too similar for me to be comfortable with either of them.

  3. And, as I’ve mentioned to you before, after having ministered in the UK for over a decade and repeatedly defending American Reformed Christians from British/European snobbery, and having to maintain again and again that Reformed Christians in the US really are not just Confederacy and Third Reich loving loons…pardon me for reaching quickly for my hip when I see something that looks, sounds, and smells, like white supremacy. That’s also not called a ‘hair-on-fire’ approach, it’s called discernment.

  4. The false dichotomies here need to stop. Now. No, you’re not the only one using them, but you be the first to stop them. We’re not faced with either the task of church reform or the task of reform outside. Local church ministry organically connects to the whole of life. Nobody here believes in a radical two kingdoms approach. And no one here is capable of bringing back the world of the magisterial Reformation. So let’s bring some of these lofty ideals back to planet earth.

  5. If your presbytery brothers are repeatedly incapable of understanding what you mean when you say…consider that the fault may not wholly lie with them.

  6. The CN crowd risks doing the same now that the BLM crowd did a decade ago. The arguments are, again - uncomfortably similar. Here’s a historical grievance, here’s a simplistic broad-brush sociological explanation and solution, here’s a novel theological reinterpretation of a worldly idea, here’s a division within the church over something no one was arguing about 15 minutes ago.

  7. You’ve mentioned you push your CN friends in the opposite direction as you argue here (or something to that effect). Be careful about playing the devil’s advocate. At best it can be ‘being cute’; at worst it can be an ‘I’m the only one who knows what’s right’ arrogance.

3 Likes