I was fortunate enough to have James Edwards of The Political Cesspool invite me to give a talk at The Political Cesspool’s ten year anniversary celebration last weekend on the topic of the intersection of Christianity and race. It was a great time of fellowship with like-minded people. I enjoyed meeting new people, seeing old friends again, and shaking hands with comrades I had previously only talked to on Facebook.
My forty minute long presentation was videotaped and you can view it below. While I would never claim to be a great public speaker, I think I managed to cover a lot of material in a systematic overview that you will hopefully find interesting and edifying. If you are a frequent reader of FaithandHeritage.com, then some parts of the talk will already be familiar to you. My goal with this presentation was to help people who already hold to the historical Christian view on race and nation get a better understanding of how everything fits together and also provide a “Christianity and Race 101” summary for those unfamiliar with the subject. As always, I welcome your thoughts in the comments section.
Many of the slides had a lot of text on them and were thus hard to read. Below I have provided all the quotations that weren’t really easy to read in addition to links to F&H articles discussing the quotes where applicable. I also included the screenshot of the Facebook post, since it was blurry in the presentation.
Law as a Moral System
The state is a law structure, and every law structure is inescapably a religious establishment. All law is an expression of some form of moral order, codified and made legal by acts of state. Moral order rests on a concept of ultimate order, on a theology. The source of law in any system is the god of that system, in that law-making is an attribute of sovereignty. This ’god’ can be man, the state, or some other entity which is made ultimate and sovereign, and is thus the working ‘god’ of the system.
Every law on the statue books is concerned with morality or with the procedures for the enforcement of law, and all law is concerned with morality. We may disagree with the morality of the law, but we cannot deny the moral concern of law. Law is concerned with right and wrong; it punishes and restrains evil and protects the good, and this is exactly what morality is about. It is impossible to have law without having morality behind that law, because all law is simply enacted morality.
The point is this: all law is enacted morality and presupposes a moral system, a moral law, and all morality presupposes a religion as its foundation. Law rests on morality, and morality on religion. Whenever and wherever you weaken the religious foundations of a country or people, you then weaken the morality also, and you take away the foundation of its law. The result is the progressive collapse of the law and order, and the breakdown of society.
– R.J. Rushdoony
Christianity as the Moral Basis for Law
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. . . . And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval [coexistent] with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. . . . The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law and they are to be found only in the holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature. . . . Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.
-Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1771) vol. I, pp. 39, 41-42.
The Moral Law
Still universally binding to all men
“And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. Beloved, I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word that you have heard.” -1 John 2:3-5,7
The Ceremonial Law
Fulfilled and done away with in Christ
“For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near… For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” -Hebrew 10:1,4
The Civil Law
Guiding principles behind laws still binding
“Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.” -1 Corinthians 9:8-10
Biblical Law for Nations
National boundaries established by God – Deuteronomy 32:7-8
Property to remain in the hands of natives – Numbers 27:6-11 & Leviticus 25:23-24
Rulers must be same ethnicity as subjects – Deuteronomy 17:15
Intermarriage forbidden – Deuteronomy 23:2 & Ezra 9:2-3
Immigration policies based on blood and history – Deuteronomy 23:3-4,7-8
Clear native versus stranger distinction – Leviticus 24:22, Leviticus 18:26, Leviticus 25:45-46, & Deuteronomy 23:19-20
Tertullian (160 – 225) (For more see: Kinism in the Early Church)
Take care, however, lest those whom you call the third race should obtain the first rank, since there is no nation indeed which is not Christian. Whatever nation, therefore, was the first, is nevertheless Christian now. It is ridiculous folly which makes you say we are the latest race, and then specifically call us the third. But it is in respect of our religion, not of our nation, that we are supposed to be the third; the series being the Romans, the Jews, and the Christians after them.
-Ad Nationes (197)
Cyprian (200 – 258) (For more see: Kinism in the Early Church)
If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like unto themselves – and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments – how much greater is the gladness of God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race [genus] is announced!
-On Jealousy and Envy (256)
St. Jerome (347–420) (For more see: Kinism in the Early Church)
In Holy Scripture there are four kinds of brethren— by nature, race, kindred, love. . . As to race, all Jews are called brethren of one another.
-Against Helvidius (383)
Proof texts: Deuteronomy 15:12, Deuteronomy 17:15, Deuteronomy 22:1, Romans 9:3-4, Genesis 13:8, 11, Genesis 12:4, Genesis 14:14
St. Augustine (354–430) (For more see: Kinism in the Early Church)
Shem, of whom Christ was born in the flesh, means “named.” And what is of greater name than Christ, the fragrance of whose name is now everywhere perceived, so that even prophecy sings of it beforehand, comparing it in the Song of Songs [1:3] to ointment poured forth? Is it not also in the houses of Christ, that is, in the churches, that the “enlargement” of the nations dwells? For Japheth means “enlargement.” And Ham (i.e., hot), who was the middle son of Noah, and, as it were, separated himself from both, and remained between them, neither belonging to the first-fruits of Israel nor to the fullness of the Gentiles, what does he signify but the tribe of heretics, hot with the spirit, not of patience, but of impatience, with which the breasts of heretics are wont to blaze, and with which they disturb the peace of the saints?… And therefore was Ham cursed in his son, he being, as it were, his fruit. So, too, this son of his, Canaan, is fitly interpreted “their movement,” which is nothing else than their work. But Shem and Japheth, that is to say, the circumcision and uncircumcision, or, as the apostle otherwise calls them, the Jews and Greeks, but called and justified… now that Japheth already dwells in the habitations of Shem, and their wicked brother between them.
-City of God, 16th book (426)
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
For the very fact that two men are alike, having, as it were, one form, makes them to be, in a manner, one in that form: thus two men are one thing in species of humanity; and two white men are one thing in whiteness. Hence the affections of one tend to the other, as being one with him; and he wishes good to him as to himself.
-Summa Theologica (1265-1274), pg. 1301
Martin Luther (1483–1546)
Therefore [Abraham] was unwilling to mix his seed with the blood of the Canaanites, lest his son become an idolater and the commingling of the seed lead at the same time to an intermingling of holy and idolatrous forms of worship.
-Luther’s Works, Vol. 4, Lecture on Genesis 21-25
John Calvin (1509–1564)
Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambition have, oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have passed their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary. For though men, by raging upon earth, do seem to assault heaven, that they may overthrow God’s providence, yet they are enforced, whether they will or no, rather to establish the same. Therefore, let us know that the world is so turned over through divers tumults, that God doth at length bring all things unto the end which he hath appointed.
-Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 17:26 (1554)
Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) (For more see: Samuel Rutherford on Kin Rule)
Deut. 17:15 demands that for the purposes of governance God’s people are to ‘choose one from amongst their brethren’ only and…the fifth commandment layeth obedience to the king on us no less than to our parents… (Q.III, p.4)
…[E]very foal to its dam… [T]he primary law of nations is indeed the law of nature, as appropriated to man…for it is better that my father govern over me than a stranger govern me, and, therefore, the Lord forbade his people to set a stranger over themselves to be their king. The Prelate contendeth for the contrary…but a man’s father was born only by nature subject to his own father, therefore…there is no government natural, but fatherly and marital… (Q.XIII, pp.51-52)
God hath made them heads of the tribes and princes of the people…it is well said that he the king is a son to them, and they, his maker… What the king doth as king, he doeth it for the happiness of his people. The king is a relative. (Q.XXV, pp.120-124)
-Lex, Rex (1644)
Matthew Henry (1662–1714)
Lev 19:19-29 Here is, I. A law against mixtures, Lev 19:19. God in the beginning made the cattle after their kind (Gen 1:25), and we must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove thee; for it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be either put to it or taken from it, Ecc 3:14. As what God has joined we must not separate, so what he has separated we must not join.
-Commentary on Leviticus 19 (1708–1710)
See the mischief of marrying with strangers. When men once became akin to Tobiah, they soon became sworn to him. A sinful love leads to a sinful league.
-Commentary Nehemiah 6 (1708–1710)
Charles Hodge (1797–1878) (For more see: Charles Hodge on Race)
Paul had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the children of God in Christ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who belonged to the family of Abraham. These he calls brethren after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the same parent. Philemon he addresses as his brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord. The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.
-Commentary on Romans 9 (1837)
It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character. . . . [A]dmitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is the instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind.[The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.
-Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 5, Section 6 (1872–73)
-Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)
Albert Barnes (1798–1870)
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek – All are on a level; all are saved in the same way; all are entitled to the same privileges. There is no favoritism on account of birth, beauty, or blood. All confess that they are sinners; all are saved by the merits of the same Saviour; all are admitted to the same privileges as children of God. The word “Greek” here is used to denote the Gentiles generally; since the whole world was divided by the Jews into “Jews and Greeks” – the Greeks being the foreign nation best known to them. The Syriac renders it here “Aramean,” using the word to denote the Gentiles generally. The meaning is, that whatever was the birth, or rank, or nation, or color, or complexion, all under the gospel were on a level. They were admitted to the same privileges, and endowed with the same hopes of eternal life. This does not mean that all the civil distinctions among people are to be disregarded.
It does not mean that no respect is to be shown to those in office, or to people in elevated rank. It does not mean that all are on a level in regard to talents, comforts, or wealth; but it means only that all people are on a level “in regard to religion.” This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that people are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society. Paul means to teach that no man has any preference or advantage in the kingdom of God because he is a rich man, or because he is of elevated rank; no one is under any disadvantage because he is poor, or because he is ignorant, or a slave. All at the foot of the cross are sinners; all at the communion table are saved by the same grace; all who enter into heaven, will enter clothed in the same robes of salvation, and arranged, not as princes and nobles, and rich men and poor men, in separate orders and ranks, but mingling together as redeemed by the same blood, and arranged in ranks according to their eminence in holiness; compare my notes at Isa 56:8.
-Notes on the Bible (1834)
R.L. Dabney (1820–1898) (For more see: Dabney on Sunday: Patriotism)
The duties of patriotism are not prominently urged in sacred Scripture. This we account for, not by supposing, with a certain sickly school of moralists, that this sentiment is selfish, narrow or inconsistent with the broadest philanthropy; but by the facts, that the obligations of the citizen are not directly religious, and that they are so natural as to require little inculcation. The Hebrew Scriptures do indeed say enough, as in the text, to justify an intense love of native land and its institutions. Civil government is God’s ordinance, and if it be just, one of his greatest temporal blessings. The diversity of tongues, characters, races and interests among mankind forbids their union in one universal commonwealth. The aggregation of men into separate nations is therefore necessary; and the authority of the governments instituted over them, to maintain internal order and external defence against aggression, is of divine appointment. Hence, to sustain our government with heart and hand is not only made by God our privilege, but our duty. Our best way to advance the well-being of the [human] race is to advance that of the portion of our [human] race associated with us in the same society. He who extends his philanthropy so broadly as to refuse a special attachment to the interests of his own people, will probably make it so thin as to be of no account to any people.
I therefore believe that there is nothing opposed to an enlightened Christianity in a warm patriotism for our particular country. This feeling is made up of several elements: a legitimate regard for our own welfare and worldly estate, interest in that of our families, and a wider benevolence towards our fellow citizens; together with an honest pride in the glories of our history, and in the justice of our institutions, with the attachments of local affection to the very scenery and soil of our native land.
-The Christian Soldier (1862)
Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920)
From the high-lands of Asia our human race came down in groups, and these in turn have been divided into races and nations; and in entire conformity to the prophetic blessing of Noah the children of Shem and of Japheth have been the sole bearers of the development of the race. No impulse for any higher life has ever gone forth from the third group.
The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.
Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.
-Common Grace (1902–1905)
J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
In the presence of this apparent collapse of free democracy, any descendant of the liberty-loving races of mankind may well stand dismayed; and to those liberty-loving races no doubt most of my hearers tonight belong. I am of the Anglo-Saxon race; many of you belong to a race whose part in the history of human freedom is if anything still more glorious; and as we all contemplate the struggle of our fathers in the winning of that freedom which their descendants seem now to be so willing to give up, we are impressed anew with the fact that it is far easier to destroy than to create.
-The Necessity of the Christian School (1933)
Dr. Clarence Macartney (1879–1957)
Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion.
-Love, Courtship, & Marriage
Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949)
Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.
Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.
-Biblical Theology (1948)
Guy T. Gillespie (For more see: A Christian View on Segregation)
A Christian View on Segregation (1954)
- Segregation Is Not the Child of Race [Hatred]
- Segregation Is One of Nature’s Universal Laws
- Segregation Tends to Promote Progress
- Segregation Does Not Necessarily Involve Discrimination
- The Principle of Segregation May Be Defended on Biblical Grounds and Is Not “Unchristian”
- Segregation Is a Well-Considered and Time-Tested American Policy
5) The Principle of Segregation May Be Defended on Biblical Grounds and Is Not “Unchristian”
(1) The First Separation (Gen. 4:11-26).
(2) The Demoralization Resulting from Intermarriage (Gen. 6:1-7).
(3) New Divisions After the Flood Stemming From Sons of Noah (Gen. 9:18-29).
(4) Origin of Linguistic Differences (Gen. 11:19).
(5) Abraham Called to a Separated Life (Gen. Chapters 12-25).
(6) Prohibitions Against the Mingling of Diverse Things (Lev. 19:19).
(7) The Warnings of Moses Against Intermarriage With Other Peoples (Deut. 7:3).
(8) Ezra’s Condemnation of Mixed Marriages (Ezra, Chapters 9-10).
(9) The Attitude and Teachings of Our Lord—The Four Gospels.
(10) The Attitude and Teachings of the Apostles—The Acts and the Epistles.
(11) Preview of The Church Triumphant (Rev., Chapters 4-7).
Bob Jones Sr. (1883–1968) (For more see: Is Segregation Scriptural)
Is Segregation Scriptural? (April 17, 1960)
What does God teach about the races of the world? If you will go to… the twenty-sixth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles,… that says that God Almighty fixed the bounds of their habitation… God Almighty did not make of the human race one race in the sense that He did not fix the bounds of their habitation. That is perfectly clear… There is an effort today to disturb the established order [segregation]… You cannot run over God’s plan and God’s established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race… Wherever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have trouble. They have trouble in New York… If we would just listen to the Word of God and not try to overthrow God’s established order, we would not have any trouble… Yes, God chose the Jews. If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible. God is the author of segregation. God is the author of Jewish separation and Japanese separation. God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew the boundary lines between races.
Finis Jennings Dake (1902–1987) (For more see: Finis Dake on Racial Segregation)
30 Reasons for Segregation of Races (1963)
Acts 17:26: ‘And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;’ (KJV)
1) God wills all races to be as He made them. Any violation of God’s original purpose manifests insubordination to Him (Acts 17:26; Romans 9:19-24).
2) God made everything to reproduce “After his own kind” (Genesis 1:11-12, 21-25; 6:20; 7:14). Kind means type and color or He would have kept them all alike to begin with.
6) Isaac forbad Jacob to take a wife of the Canaanites (Genesis 27:46-28:7).
12) God forbad intermarriage between Israel and all other nations (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:5-6).
15) Miscegenation caused Israel to be cursed (Judges 3:6-7; Numbers 25:1-8).
18) God commanded Israel to be segregated (Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 23:9; 1 Kings 8:53).
21) All nations will remain segregated from one another in their own parts of the earth forever (Acts 17:26; Genesis 10:5,32; 11:8-9; Deuteronomy 32:8; Daniel 7:13-14; Zechariah 14; Revelation 11:15; 21:24).
Dr. Morton H. Smith (1923-) (For more see: Dr. Morton H. Smith on Christianity, Race, and Segregation)
The Racial Problem Facing America (1964)
If from this we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong. . . .
The mass mixing of the races with the intent to erase racial boundaries he does consider to be wrong, and on the basis of this, he would oppose the mixing of the two races in this way. Let it be acknowledged that a sin in this area against the Negro race has been perpetrated by godless white men, both past and present, but this does not justify the adoption of a policy of mass mixing of the races. Rather, the Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.
R.J. Rushdoony (1916–2001) (For more see: Rushdoony’s Kinism)
Moreover, if she is to be “a help as before him,” a mirror, there must be a common cultural background. This militates against marriages across cultures and across races where there is no common culture or association possible. The new unit is a continuation of the old unit but an independent one; and there has to be a unity or else it is not a marriage. Thus, the attempt of many today to say there is nothing in the Bible against mixed marriages whether religiously or culturally is altogether unfounded. We do not have to go to the Mosaic law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) to demonstrate that, because here in the very beginning (Genesis) we are told that she must be a help meet “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh” sharing his faith, sharing a common background, a common culture, a common desire to fulfill his calling under God. This, then, is the meaning of marriage in the Biblical sense.
-The Doctrine of Marriage
The answer is, there is not a law against [interracial marriage], but there is basically a principle that militates against such marriages, so that you might say they are just barely legal, but in principle Scripture is opposed to them. Because the whole point of marriage is that the wife be a helpmeet to her husband, and the term “helpmeet” means in effect a mirror, an image, one who reflects him spiritually; that is, in terms of faith, in terms of a common background, in terms of a common purpose. Now, marriage between persons of very different races generally doesn’t fulfill that requirement, you see. So that it can be technically a marriage, but it isn’t one in which the wife can be a helpmeet. So that while it can legally qualify, theologically you could say there are factors which normally, in almost 99 cases out of 100, would militate against it.
-The Law of Divorce (audio)
Dr. Nigel Lee (1934–2011)
I don’t believe [racial integration] is what the Bible teaches. Even though we may have transgressed the boundaries of nationhood and of peoplehood, it seems to me that God did create man of one blood in order that he may dwell as different nations throughout the world. But after the fall, when sinful man cosmopolitanly – meaning by that, with a desire to obliterate separate nationhood, with a desire to build a sort of United Nations organization under the Tower of Babel…attempted to resist developing peoplehood…[God confused the tongues of men]…because men had said, ‘Let us build a city and a tower which will stretch up to heaven lest we be scattered’… Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow… In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.
John Edwards Richards
Causes of Separation in 1973
- The Socialist, who declares all men are equal. Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
- The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
- The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
- The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.
“We don’t believe in countries … breaking and destroying all borders is our aim. What matters are Islam and a Sunni reign.”
-Abu Yusaf, commander in the Islamic State, 2014
“The sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews… Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why Gentiles were created.”
-Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, 2010
“Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected.”
-Abraham Kuyper, (1902–1905)
Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel
These six “social sins” which Jesus, according to Rauschenbusch, bore on the Cross:
“Religious bigotry, the combination of graft and political power, the corruption of justice, the mob spirit (being “the social group gone mad”) and mob action, militarism, and class contempt– every student of history will recognize that these sum up constitutional forces in the Kingdom of Evil. Jesus bore these sins in no legal or artificial sense, but in their impact on his own body and soul. He had not contributed to them, as we have, and yet they were laid on him. They were not only the sins of Caiaphas, Pilate, or Judas, but the social sin of all mankind, to which all who ever lived have contributed, and under which all who ever lived have suffered.”
Rauschenbusch also devoted considerable effort to explicating the problem of evil, which he saw embodied not in individuals, but in “suprapersonal entities”, which were socio-economic and political institutions. He found four major loci of suprapersonal evil: militarism, individualism, capitalism and nationalism. To these he juxtaposed four institutional embodiments of good: pacifism, collectivism, socialism and internationalism.
Post-Protestants (For more see: The Religious Roots of the Elite Liberal Agenda)
Post-Protestants are the connection between social gospel and modern liberalism
“According to Rauschenbusch, one opposes these social sins through direct action, legislative amelioration, and simply recognizing their effect and sympathizing with their victims. Rauschenbusch wrote, “An experience of religion through the medium of solidaristic social feeling is an experience of unusually high ethical quality, akin to that of the prophets of the Bible.””
“The post-Protestants Bottum identifies have just that, “a social gospel, without the gospel. For all of them, the sole proof of redemption is the holding of a proper sense of social ills. The only available confidence about their salvation, as something superadded to experience, is the self-esteem that comes with feeling they oppose the social evils of bigotry and power and the groupthink of the mob.””
“With the proper feeling comes a proper sense of guilt, and a missionary’s zeal to correct wrongs. Over a century ago Rauschenbusch wrote, “If a man has drawn any religious feeling from Christ, his participation in the systematized oppression of civilization will, at least at times, seem an intolerable burden and guilt.” Bottum deftly notes that in theological terms this signals “a nearly complete transfer of Christian fear and Christian assurance into a sensibility of the need for reform, a mysticism of the social order — the anxiety about salvation resolved by ecstatic transport into the feeling of social solidarity.””
Biblically we are required to give preference and have greater duties and responsibilities to those closest to us, especially family. The Biblical family is the extended family which extends outward to the tribal ethnic nation as the foundational political unit. Nations in Scripture are defined by common lineage, and not by common faith. The Biblical blueprint of the state is one political unit for each ethnicity and one ethnicity per political unit. In Scripture, the model is land ownership being limited to a single ethnicity, national affairs being restricted to a single ethnicity, and the ruler being required to be blood kin to those he rules. None of that bans international commerce, tourism, friendships, or missionary work, but multiracial empires, propositional countries, miscegenation, and importing a different people through mass immigration are all unscriptural. While exceptions may occur from time to time, this is the clear Biblical normative and should be pursued as the ideal.
- Unitarianism – emphasis on God being one and the spiritual church being one, while rejecting or ignoring the flip side that the Godhead is composed of distinct persons and the church is composed of distinct nations, genders, and persons.
- Gnosticism – rejection and vilification of the human body and of the material world as meaningless or unimportant. Teaching duality in Material (Matter) versus Spiritual, or Body (evil) versus Soul (good) terms as a dichotomy in conflict.
- Dispensationalism – rejection of the authority of the Old Testament with the New Testament cancelling out the Old.
- Arminianism – rebelling against the “unfairness” of God giving different peoples and nations unequal talents, attributes, and abilities.