Race, Immigration, and the Church

The Public Square
21

Agreed. My own view is that the whole Christian nationalism debate needs to be informed by contributions from the Christians in the world who live in societies which are very much not Christian. E.g.: Singapore (Confucianism); Malaysia (Islam, at least in Peninsula Malaysia); Thailand (Buddhism); or India (Hinduism). Thoughts?

1 Like
22

I read your work this morning, Joseph. It was a helpful read. One quick thought: Your most significant extra-biblical source is from R. L. Dabney. Now, I hope you realize why that stands out to me. This project is in danger of producing a generation of Dabneys (Mahler and the many who will not condemn his views). There’s some poison in the stew, and I don’t think we’ve come close to removing it. Perhaps I’m ignorant or naïve, but I think we need to do much more work on how grace reforms nature and transcends superficial distinctions—without, obviously, destroying them.

2 Likes
23

It might be good, Ross. But what about countries or societies which are “very much Christian,” as you would put it? How do we identify them?

“In God we trust?”

Ninety percent baptized “in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?”

Seventy percent have a Bible?

Three percent read it?

Surveys show they identify as “Christian?”

Sounds good unless those societies kill well over a quarter of their children while yet in their wombs, and have done so decade in, decade out, with the death toll well over a hundred million (remember hormonal birth control).

Sounds good unless those societies, at the recommendation of their Christian theology and ethics professor of Covenant Theological Seminary, have repealed all their sodomy laws, then declared sodomite marriage a right bestowed upon the citizens by their Constitution.

Sounds good unless that culture has rejected God’s order of male and female in positions of authority across the culture, and the majority of students in its professional schools—especially seminaries—are women, with grads taking over all positions of authority across that culture.

Sounds good unless that culture has neutered its Scriptures and loves it that way.

Sounds good unless that culture rejects God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Sounds good unless the Christian religious of that culture throw the babies of its unwed mothers into septic tanks, refusing them Christian burial.

Sounds good unless the new initiative in that culture is passing a law protecting murderess mothers from prosecution for killing their babies, doing so under the justification that those mothers must be protected from any harsh treatment.

Sounds good unless naked images dominate that culture’s screens, both ads and entertainments.

Sounds good unless a large and growing percentage of that culture’s fathers and mothers die by narcotic suppression of vital functions or starvation or dehydration, rather than natural causes, and their children are thankful for this and attend church each Sunday where they hear no condemnation of their violation of the Sixth Commandment in this way; no warning against this terrible sin; and no discipline for committing it.

We would continue, but several things should be obvious.

First, this list of horrors is within the church.

Second, this indicates the culture spoken of is most assuredly not “Christian,” if by “Christian” we mean anything at all having to do with fearing and loving God, and obeying His commandments.

Not “Christian,” but rather nominally Christian—“in name, only.”

And that is what is meant by Christian nationalism. That is always what has been meant by Christian nationalism. Circumcised foreskins, only. Take away “nationalism” and all men of God are all-in on this project of Christianizing their nation by true repentance and true faith under godly male civil authorities, and so on. I’ve given my blood, sweat, and tears to this calling, often failing but still committed.

Add “nationalism” and I’m out and shouting my warnings. Men who aspire to “Christianize” or repristinate their nation, religiously, will never do the work that is needed to wake up and reform the church, herself. Having fixed their eyes on bigger things, their churches are filled with these sins and the people love it that way. “Pastor, take your conflict out to the streets, but keep it away from my wife and children. They get scared by preaching that awakens me and them. We don’t need drama here. Take it somewhere else. Give me a moral and civil project—not a personal and spiritual one. That’s too infuriating.”

Until nominalism is outed and repented of inside the church, the society will never be “Christian” in any meaningful way. Because, we see, a nominally Christian culture or nation grows out of a nominally Christian church. Pastors and elders loudly marketing their aspirations to Christianize our nation while refusing (yes, that’s the right word) to Christianize our churches is the betrayal of our calling, our Lord, and our sheep.

What must remain at the front of our minds in such discussions is that men of political religious aspirations making names for themselves by marketing those aspirations will never turn away from the culture and nation to focus on the repentance of the Church and themselves. For this reason, God will never bless their aspirational project.

We pastors are the enemy of the birth and growth of a truly Christian people. Pagans and libs and Blacks and Jews aren’t. Love,

5 Likes
24

Finally got to your pdf. Thank you for going through the effort to think through this and teach on it. I see what you’re trying to do, and I admire the pastoral heart behind this.

Still I remain unpersuaded that this is the solution, and I’m actually persuaded this will only perpetuate the problem.

  1. BLM started by taking an underlying problem and then assuming that problem writ large in society, in both unconscious and malicious ways. I think you’re doing this as well. The document as it reads now will further instil in one’s mind that western (read: white) culture is under attack by other (largely non-white) groups that want to eradicate our way of life. I think that’s bad theology, so engaging with it as such will lead to bad ethics.

  2. The New Testament actually makes very little emphasis on race or ethnicity, and it says almost nothing about culture (in the sense that you’re talking about). Why is culture such a massive emphasis in your paper and within Christian Nationalism? Shouldn’t we instead be talking about how Christianity should transform every culture, especially those represented here?

  3. I think you have a shallow understanding of how cultures change over time. You’re reading recent demographic trends (which exist and are unfortunate) with a catastrophising mindset. But even if these trends are all that you think they are, arguing against them and trying to stop them seems to be trying to stop the incoming tide. Is that all we can learn from this? Is that all we should do in response to this? Much of this conversation seems to neglect the weightier matters of the law in favour of matters we have no power at all to change (nor if we had power would we use it any better than those before us have).

  4. Tim’s point above is important. We had something better, and we (we and our fathers) failed to steward it well. That should be a caution to us and our pride.

  5. What about love of our neighbour? You address this, but it seems like in this discussion you inevitably circle back to family/clan/kin. The whole point of Jesus’ parable is that the Samaritan was other! He’s not of our kin/culture/religion/family/tribe/whatever. Given our own nation’s history of racial pride and discrimination, I don’t think we should so quickly dismiss this parable (or make it about something it so clearly isn’t), especially given how the racial pride and discrimination evident among the Jews in the gospels confronts our own sin.

  6. Maybe this is obvious in what I’ve said, but I think it must come back to the church as a new nation called out from among the nations. That’s our priority, not our own native culture. And if we’re holding to our own native culture with more tenacity than we hold to the unity of all cultures in the church, something is wrong.

3 Likes
25

Amen and amen.

2 Likes
26

Pastor Spurgeon and I had a good and long talk today, and it was helpful to me to understand why I frustrate him. At the end of our talk, I mentioned that he had said one thing in particular that was specially giving me pause. He’d pointed out that Christian nationalism is mostly opposed by pastors, but promoted and supported by laymen. “That is a surprise to me and causes me to be much more sympathetic to Christian nationalism,” I said. Don’t want to document my reasoning behind this statement just now, but did want to note our talk and this particular response I had, doing so here publicly. Love,

4 Likes
27

Dear Tim,
I was just coming here to say that we had a good talk. I always appreciate that you take time to talk and encourage me.

love,

Joseph

3 Likes
28

And you, me, dear brother. Love,

2 Likes
29

Dear Andrew,
Thank you for taking the time to read through my Sunday School material. If I had to critique it, it is too dense. I wasn’t able to cover immigration last week. It will come of no surprise to you but I appreciate a lot of Dabney’s work. But I just as easily could have quoted other of our fathers. For example here is Calvin:

“Regarding our eternal salvation it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us…. Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].” — Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.” - Augustine

“This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained; but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that even preserves and adopts them, so long as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced.”

—City of God, Book 19, Chapter 17

“The members of a community are private and diverse associations of families and collegia, not the individual members of private associations. These persons, by their coming together, now become not spouses, kinsmen, and colleagues, but citizens of the same community. Thus passing from the private symbiotic relationship, they unite in the one body of a community. Differing from citizens, however, are foreigners, outsiders, aliens, and strangers whose duty it is to mind their own business, make no strange inquiries, not even to be curious in a foreign commonwealth, but to adapt themselves, as far as good conscience permits, to the customs of the place and city where they live in order that they may not be a scandal to others….” – Politica

“In the ordering of our Love… we are to respect the conjunction by nature or grace in the duties of Love which we freely perform… We owe not so much to those persons with whom we have no such Conjunction. Thus, we should prefer a faithful man before an infidel, because in the one there is only the image of God by nature, in the other it is both by creation and regeneration… And among the faithful, we should rather do good to those of our own country, than to Strangers, because beside the bonds of Religion, there is also a second bond of proximity and cohabitation, and among them to our acquaintance before those that are unknown to us, because we have an easier entrance unto them to do them good by persuasion, etc. And among such, to our kindred and alliance before others… because we are joined and bound together as soon as we are born, and this bond cannot be dissolved as long as we live.” – The pattern of catechistical doctrine at large, pgs. 320–321 Lancelot Andrews

“What do ye call natural affections?
Such as be among them of one blood and kindred, as between parents and children, husbands and wives, kindred, country, heathens, yea Christians…

“(How) does it differ from human and Christian affection?
Human affection is that whereby we embrace all men as men; natural affection is that where by we embrace them which are nearer unto us by blood; Christian affection is that whereby we love good men because they belong to Christ.”
— A Commentary on the Most Divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 3rd ed. 1653, Chapter 1, page 54 Thomas Wilson

“If strangers have right to our houses or lands etc., then it is either of justice or of mercy; if of justice let them plead it, and we shall know what to answer: but if it be only in way of mercy, or by the rule of hospitality etc., then I answer 1st a man is not a fit object of mercy except he be in misery. 2d. We are not bound to exercise mercy to others to the ruin of ourselves. 3d. There are few that stand in need of mercy at their first coming hither. As for hospitality, that rule doth not bind further than for some present occasion, not for continual residence A family is a little common wealth, and a common wealth is a great family. Now as a family is not bound to entertain all comers, no not every good man (otherwise than by way of hospitality) no more is a common wealth.- John Withrop

These are just a small amount of what can be found throughout church history. I chose Dabney because he used the language of patriotism in our American context.

I don’t think Dabney and Mahler are the same but I get what you mean.

30

Well, not really. Dabney’s context is CSA.

31

Dear Pastor Prelock,

Thank you for reading through the PDF and for responding. I appreciate your taking the time to engage, and I know that your concern flows from a pastoral heart. I hope you’ll receive this reply in the same spirit—direct and charitable.

You say that you’re unpersuaded and even persuaded this “will only perpetuate the problem.” But that assumes the central issue is one of method and tone, not of truth. The real question is: is what I said true?

That’s what I’m interested in. Not reaction. Not optics. Not managing worst-case scenarios. But truth.

Much of modern discourse—especially around race, nation, and culture—has been castrated by fear. We speak in the safety of implication and concern, rather than in the sharpness of clarity. We’re always talking about how something might be misused or how it makes people feel, rather than whether it’s true.

I’m not interested in “gelded discourse.” I want to be careful—but not neutered. The question is not whether speaking plainly about nation, culture, and peoplehood could possibly be taken wrongly. The question is whether what’s said is true. If it is, then we follow where the truth leads. If it’s false, we abandon it. But we don’t begin with implications and work backward to the facts.

Now for a story:
The other night, my wife and I were watching the news. I turned to her and asked, “How do you feel about this as an American?” She smiled and said, “I’m not an American. I’m a Filipino.” I laughed and reminded her, “Well, you’re a U.S. citizen now.” She replied, “Sure, but I’m not an American." I said “sure you are.” She said, “No, I am filipino.” I said “Stop being racist.” And we laughed.

You know what’s interesting? I’ve had conversations like this with many people from other nations and backgrounds—black, Hispanic, Asian—and none of them find any of this controversial. They know where they come from. They know who their people are. They have no problem recognizing ethnicity, history, culture, or national identity. They can speak plainly about it without guilt, fear, or hand-wringing.

But white Western Christians? We’re the only ones who seem terrified to acknowledge what every other people takes for granted. We’ve been conditioned—especially after World War II—to think that any awareness of peoplehood is a moral failing, or even a precursor to atrocity. That assumption has filtered into the church, where many now think the only faithful way to handle race or nation is with some form of colorblind abstraction.

Now I could go through each of your points but I don’t know that any of them are really strong arguments. But I appreciate you taking them time.

love,

32

Okay, I’ll bite.

  1. This is simply poor reasoning. Especially as a pastor.

It may be true a young couple in the church may not yet be having sex and they may still be being immoral. A man may not yet have wandered from the faith once delivered and may still be on the path to shipwreck. It’s not merely the absence or presence of poison in our food that matters, it’s whether or not the food is wholesome. So here, in teaching, it’s a slippery and evasive trick to accuse me of ‘gelded discourse’. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not angry. But I own and have read most of what Dabney has written, I’ve studied Thornwell, I have immense personal sympathy for Dabney and the South, I disagree strongly with the philosophy of multiculturalism, I fought the BLM and anti-racist crowd in London and even within my own fellowship of churches and I still read what you’ve written (even more so what your friends have written) and come away from it saying, as Ryle once said, ‘this is not a full 16 ounces to the pound.’

One can be technically and precisely correct in the facts and still miss the truth.

  1. In point D - Defining Natural Affection, you are incorrect to connect ‘abandoning loyalty to kin and nation’ to Romans 1.31 and 2 Timothy 3.3. That’s simply not what Paul is talking about in either of those verses.

  2. On ‘who are my people’, you give half the space to ‘our spiritual people’ that you give to ‘our natural people’. That is a false representation of the New Testament’s emphasis on the matter. Thus your presentation of the matter is not true.

  3. I appreciate how measured you are in the section on immigration. There is much to commend in this section (in particular).

  4. In the section where you reference Stone Choir, you condemn their teachings as not rooted in love, but they are also not rooted in truth (or in reality).

  5. In the previous paragraph to the one I just referenced, you state that ‘bio determinists think a man’s genetic background would keep him from being justified or sanctified.’ The actual concern (from Dabney and some of the more ungodly wing of CN) is that a man’s genetic background would also keep him from being civilised (hence my concern about the elder who kept bringing black crime into the discussion). This also is false.

  6. And in a lesson on how to think about these things, failing to discuss the Good Samaritan is a significant oversight. Yes, what’s absent is fair game as well as what’s present.

Is that enough of specifics on truth/falsehood to engage with? I came into this discussion with good faith and good will…seeing you simply brush them aside as unworthy of engagement was disheartening.

33

I did not mean to dishearten you but to be frank, I don’t think any of your first points seriously challenge the substance of what I said. They express anxiety about tone, direction, and possibility. But none of them actually refute the claims. And I appreciate that you took the time to write them out. I don’t think you or anyone else is arguing in bad faith or bad will, so please do not take what I said as that. My point was simply that much of the resistance I’ve received (not just from you) is framed around concerns rather than arguments. You’ve now laid out several specific claims, and I’m glad for it. Let’s engage them.

1. “It’s not just about what’s true, but whether it’s wholesome.”

You’re absolutely right that not all technically true things are pastorally prudent in every context. But that cuts both ways. You’re making an argument about trajectory and tone—fine. But that’s not a rebuttal of the truth, it’s a question of application. And that was precisely my critique of much of modern discourse: it too often starts with anticipated reaction rather than clarity on reality.

Your analogy of a young couple not yet in sin or a man not yet shipwrecked is about warning signs. But again now we are talking not about the truth of a thing but where we are afraid it may go. What’s more, I reject the idea that speaking about peoplehood, nation, and identity in biblical categories is akin to “poisoning the food.” To call that a “slippery trick” or “not wholesome” still dodges the question: is it true?

I agree that one can be technically and precisely correct in the facts and still miss the truth. The problem is that you haven’t proven that with what I said. It’s just assertions. At best its a judgement call, and I don’t begrudge you making a judgment call but I do think judgments should be more than someone might become like Robert Dabney. I also want to not just defend what I have done but promote my strategy. When there are many asking these questions, we can refuse to attempt answers, we can beat them down as dirty Christian nationalists or racists, or we can try to provide real meaningful answers that (assuming your concerns are right) have the danger of being abused but are at least attempting to deal with the questions. I choose to engage these men because I believe they are brothers, sheep, fellow Christians, part of the household of faith, my spiritual people.

2. Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3 – Natural Affection

You claim I wrongly connect the abandonment of natural affection to disloyalty to kin or nation.

Let’s clarify.

Romans 1:31 lists those “without natural affection” (astorgoi), and 2 Timothy 3:3 uses the same word. Paul is clearly referring to something more than just parents to children—he’s condemning the broader collapse of creational affections and ordered loyalties.

Storge is the Greek word for the natural love of family, kin, and homeland. The Puritans, Reformers, and classical Christian tradition all understood this. Thomas Wilson (commentary on Romans 1) defines natural affection as “that whereby we embrace them which are nearer unto us by blood.” Lancelot Andrewes spoke similarly, and even Paul in 1 Timothy 5 says a man who doesn’t provide for his own household is “worse than an infidel.”

So yes, it is biblical to say that to be “without natural affection” includes a rejection of kin, nation, and those nearest by blood. You may disagree with how I apply that to modern guilt-ridden white Christians, but the connection itself is not fabricated. It’s in our reformed heritage.

3. “Your paper under-emphasizes spiritual unity in favor of natural peoplehood.”

It was a paper on natural affections and dealing with questions about these things. It was meant to fill a Sunday school class not be a complete cyclopedia of all Christian teaching. Furthermore, the same point about Spiritual unity was giving an entire section at the end so I did not feel the need to go as strong into it on that particular section. I also am assuming that for most Christians it is a given that the church is our spiritual people. I also assuming a whole bunch of prior teaching from myself in sermons and elsewhere. It would be like if I taught a class on hell and you accused me of not speaking on heaven enough in it.

4. Thank You.

5 & 6. Stone Choir & Bio-Determinism

Yes, I called out Stone Choir for lack of love—but I also agree, many of their views are not rooted in truth either. I don’t share their biological fatalism. My whole section on regeneration explicitly rejects the idea that genetic stock can bar a man from justification or sanctification.

You mentioned Dabney and others expressing concern about civilizational fitness, not salvation. Fair. But even there, we must ask: is this about providential differences between peoples or a metaphysical claim about unchangeable racial capacity?

If it’s the former, we can discuss and measure. If it’s the latter, it denies Scripture’s view of humanity. I’m trying to carefully navigate that distinction, and I’m happy to refine language if needed.

7. The Good Samaritan

I actually think this is a helpful critique. I could have included that scripture. I had it in mind when I said that our loves extend out from us all the way to our enemies. But I grant your point. The parable deserved inclusion. That said, let’s not misuse it.

The point of the parable is that our love must extend beyond natural boundaries—but it doesn’t erase those boundaries. Jesus didn’t tell a Jewish man to pretend he had no people. He told him to see a man in need and help him. Ordered affection and generosity are not at odds.

You’re right to demand full weight in the scales. “Not a full 16 ounces to the pound,” you said. That’s a charge worth testing. But I’d ask you this in return: have we not all, for decades now, been handing out 12-ounce gospel cliches on this topic while hiding from harder truths?

I appreciated you taking the time to work through my paper. You didn’t have to take the time. I also appreciate you brother working for peace amongst a denomination that you are not even a part of. Thank you for that. Thank you for your patience with me. I have truly enjoyed getting to know you over the last month or so.

Love,
Joseph

1 Like
34

Two quick responses…

  1. Tone/direction/gut-feel is perfectly fair game, and indeed a masculine approach (the men in the pew know when something doesn’t smell right, and often better than their pastors do) precisely because this has been such a rapidly changing issue. We’ve gone from Richard Spencer being a fanboy of the lunatic-right fringe, to his views reappearing in mainstream voices…again…within our camp. You can’t fault your brothers for saying, I can’t put my finger on it, but this doesn’t feel right. Instinct, when well trained, can be just as valuable as fact. Several years ago I was willing to defend Wolfe simply on ground of hard fact despite a gut-level reservation. Fool me once…

  2. Why can’t we all labour for a full 16 ounces to the pound, now? I don’t care how badly someone got it wrong a generation ago. I care how we’re getting it wrong today! Someone else’s foolishness doesn’t excuse my equal but opposite foolishness. Enough pendulum swinging. Let’s do the hard work of a precise theology rather than giving way to reactionary approaches that will inevitably do more harm than good. Again, look at BLM. There were genuine cultural issues at play, but the underlying philosophy was deeply flawed, so the approach failed catastrophically. I’d like to be optimistic toward and charitable about CN, but recent developments have soured me towards the movement. The foundation simply isn’t stable.

35

One personal anecdote.

I watched the discussion between Thabiti Anyabwile and Doug Wilson c.2013 with real optimism and was greatly disappointed.

I pray we here can find better agreement than they did. There is much to lose…

36

You’ve done a fine job, Joseph. I personally am trying to discern if the racism of some CN guys is inevitable, incidental or contrary to the views you laid out. It’s going to take time, but I’m assessing the fruit right now and many of the guys who are throwing confusion into the minds of the unsuspecting and undiscerning make similar arguments to yours. You’ve done your homework. You’ve been nuanced and detailed. I agree with much that you have written. I remain concerned about the resemblance of your arguments and the noxious racists. And then, also concerned about how these arguments will be used by the less discerning.

Think about patriarchy—Bibical and good, we agree, but unhinged despots in their homes use the same arguments with sinful results. Obviously, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the arguments (the abuse of something…), but we must anticipate and warn against the misapplications and over-extensions.

Shall we ordo amoris to the point that we despise the orphan, neighbor, or alien? May it never be.

4 Likes
37

Seems to me this entire debate (not just this one here) is really about two questions (or at least stems from these two questions):

  1. What is America?
    i.e. Who does it belong to? Anglo-Protestants? Indigenous peoples of the pre-1500’s? Anyone? Is it a global melting pot?
  2. Are global melting pots right or wrong?
    There are other global melting pots, like Brazil (made up of Portuguese, Mayan, African, Anglo, etc.). If it were to adopt Christian Nationalism, what would the long term goal be? This of course raises the question ‘What is a Brazilian?’

How one answers these questions will depend upon their understanding (presuppositions) of history, culture, race, and theology. This is where much of the disagreement and concern lies.

The more I give myself to thinking through all of this the more overwhelmed I am. All these issues are massive. Maybe we are involving ourselves in things too difficult for us? (Ps. 131) I’m not saying we shouldn’t think through this stuff, but come on? Paul didn’t seem to care about the globalism of his day (Hellenization), but took advantage of it, probably because he understood it was a good thing Alexander sought to homogenize cultures, because now there was a common language, hence Greek NT. I’m kinda glad we have major trade languages, the Internet, and more open societies/boarders. Fields are white for harvest.

1 Like
38

You’re asking good questions, but the fundamental one with us, called and ordained to pastoral ministry, is what is the nature of our calling? Are we to use our capital for the furtherance of political schemes, or for the protection and feeding and love of Christ’s sheep?

These discussions are foolish because they take our eye off the ball. Truth is, when we return to our true calling and authority, we will see much better results in our public square than when we do otherwise. As I never stop saying, the pulpit leads the world, and the man who abuses the pulpit to promote political aspirations and schemes—just like the hippies who came into the church to become pastors and oppose the Vietnam War and support the crusade against apartheid and the Sandanistas (but yeah, I know no one thinks he should listen to men who are old)—will have no authority and fade away. I’ve been there and seen it.

The curse of youth is they refuse to listen to the wisdom of age, while the curse of age is that, when they’ve finally come to possess wisdom, youth refuses to listen.

Love,

4 Likes