In part 1, we saw that dispensationalism entails that God wants the nation of Israel (and, by extension, other peoples and cultures) to remain a distinct race with a distinct culture. In this article, we will further explore dispensationalism and what it entails regarding race and ethnicity. Particularly, we are going to focus on the dispensationalist belief in the imminent return of Christ to rapture the Church.
Dispensationalists interpret Revelation 20 as teaching that Christ will have an earthly reign that will last exactly 1,000 years. As premillennialists and pretribulationists, dispensationalists believe that Christ will return to rapture the Church from the earth to heaven before He establishes His earthly kingdom. The Jewish people and non-believing Gentiles will be left on the earth during a seven-year tribulation. Because the tribulation does not precede Christ’s rapture of the Church, dispensationalists believe that Christ’s return for the Church is imminent. Although certain events, such as the reestablishment of the nation of Israel, can indicate that the rapture is possibly nearer than farther away, Christ’s return for the Church could happen at any time.
As Davis Carlton warns, this dispensationalist belief can lead to Christian apathy. If the world looks like it is getting worse and worse, then it is possible that dispensationalists might simply think the end is near and do nothing or very little to stop it. After all, why worry when the Church will be feasting with Christ during the tribulation?
However, there is more for dispensationalists to consider in addition to their doctrine of imminence. A major biblical passage in this regard is Paul’s words in 1 Timithy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (NASB). Paul here is talking about how believers ought to take care of immediate and extended family members who are widows. If someone neglects to care for his sister, mother, aunt, grandmother, etc. who has lost her husband, then that person is “worse than an unbeliever.”
Although Paul’s concept refers to widows, it easily applies to other types of family members who come both before and after the current generations of Christians. In other words, Paul’s words could be applied to someone who does not care for his children or grandchildren. So, if Christians (regardless of their outlook on the future) do not take the necessary steps to protect their children, grandchildren, and other relations, then they are worse than unbelievers.
Paul’s passage becomes even more convicting when considering the words of our Lord: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” (Matt. 7:11) Jesus is saying that even evil people want to care for their children. Paul’s warning follows in that if you do not take care of your family, then you are worse than evil people and unbelieving people.
But what would it look like for white Christians to take Paul seriously? If we are to take care of our immediate family, this means that we must not only provide for our family’s immediate physical and spiritual needs, but also ensure that our children are going to have a country to live where they won’t be persecuted for being Christian or for being white. If we are going to take care of our extended family, this quickly and easily begins to look like Christian ethnonationalism.
This is in part because whites are one of the least likely to marry outside our race.1 Of course, in the U.S., non-white races (regardless of their percentage of race-mixing) understand this and they have political and social groups that are aimed at furthering their own peoples. It is only whites who have let themselves believe it is wrong to think of themselves and act as a distinct racial group.
However, if white Christians are going to take care of their extended families, they must not only provide for their extended families’ physical and spiritual needs, but also ensure that their physical and spiritual needs can and will be met in the future. This entails battling cultural Marxism (to preserve classical Christian and European culture) and working for the right to freely associate (to prevent mandatory racial integration and eventual ethnic replacement) to ensure a future for our people. If Christians are to take Paul – and God’s Word – seriously, we must do these things to the best of our abilities, regardless of whether we are white or non-white. If we are not then we are worse than evil, unbelieving people who do these things on the basis of common sense.
When Paul’s and Jesus’s words are viewed in the light of current events, we find a strong tension between the actions of white Christians and the commands of Scripture. The majority of white Christians are not battling cultural Marxism, or even familiar with the term. Instead of defending their culture and their people, they are gladly allowing them to be destroyed and displaced. All of this is being done in the name of tolerance and human freedom, with Scripture being twisted to accommodate the whole process.
Returning to the dispensationalist belief in the imminent return of Christ, it becomes obvious that dispensationalists should be among the most ardent defenders of Christian ethnonationalism. Jesus has entrusted Christians not only with the gospel, but also with the lives and souls of our immediate and extended families. Dispensationalists need to consider, when He eventually judges their works, will Christ say, “Well done, good and faithful slave,” or will He say, “You wicked, lazy slave”? Since it is impossible to know when Christ will return, there is no time to wait. Dispensationalists must be working now to preserve their families, peoples, and cultures. Christ’s imminent return should cultivate urgency, not apathy.
As I mentioned in part 1 of this article, dispensationalists have a bad reputation. The dispensationalist distinction between Israel and the Church, along with the doctrine of the imminence of the rapture, have led many dispensationalists to place other cultures and peoples before their own. However, as I have shown, dispensationalists ought to be Christian ethnonationalists if they are to take their theology and Scripture seriously. The dispensationalist distinction between the Church and Israel entails that God wants racial and ethnic groups to flourish and remain distinct. Also, the dispensationalist doctrine of the imminence of the rapture, in light of God’s command for Christians to care for their families, entails that dispensationalists should be doing all they can to ensure the future of their families and peoples. At the very least, these dispensationalist beliefs entail that it would be theologically inconsistent and hypocritical for dispensationalists to view ethnonationalism for people of European heritage as wrong or sinful.
Nonetheless, dispensationalism is much more based than most people think. So next time, give your dispensationalist friends a break. Or, if your dispensationalist friends are not red-pilled, ask them what they think about God allowing Israel to survive while willing Europeans to be replaced by the third world. Ask them if they think God will reward them for allowing their families to be displaced and their culture to be destroyed.