The Sanctification of the Races, Part 3: The Homogeneous Church as a Means of Sanctification

 

Read Part 1
Read Part 2

 

Acts 17:26-27 (NKJV): “And He has made from one blood every nation (ethnos) of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.”

Introduction

God has created and providentially preserved a racially diverse creation. This diversity was foreordained purposefully in eternity, and in His providence the races were separated for their preservation at the Tower of Babel By this same providence. the Lord has continued to sustain this diversity, which will continue beyond the end of this world (Rev. 7:9). Out of these nations, God has called unto Himself a peculiar people – His Church. All people who embrace Christ, regardless of their ethnic and racial identity, will be saved. The members of this church, reconciled with Christ, are also reconciled with each other. Therefore, there exists a spiritual unity among Christians united in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. This spiritual unity, priceless as it is, does not destroy the cultural and genetic diversity of God’s creation; in fact, these diverse genetic and racial components within mankind are sanctified purposefully and really by this unity. The Scots Confession states in article 16:

This Kirk is catholic, that is, universal, because it contains the chosen of all ages, of all realms, nations, and tongues, be they of the Jews or be they of the Gentiles, who have communion and society with God the Father, and with his Son, Christ Jesus, through the sanctification of his Holy Spirit.¹

Note the distinction between ‘realms’ (civic nations) and ‘nations’ (ethno-nations), as well as between Jews and Gentiles. This clearly and necessarily indicates the multiracial composition of the universal church. The fact that this distinction is made with regard to the members of the same invisible church indicates the necessity to preserve and cherish our racial identity as Christians.

The church has a sanctifying role to play in the lives of the faithful. As I have argued in part two of this series, the races, being differently and unequally depraved, will have corresponding differences with regard to their sanctification after their regeneration and after they have been adopted into the church invisible as full members of the body of Christ.  The invisible church (consisting of all believers from all ages, nations, races tongues and places) should never be confused with the visible church (the congregation of believers at a given time and place). Contrary to the teachings of the heretical Belhar Confession, while the church invisible is inseparable and united in faith and doctrine — to create separation within this church is a damnable abomination — nevertheless the church visible can and should be separated into distinct congregations. There are many considerations to be taken into account when segregating congregations within the body of Christ from each other. Virtually all Christians would agree that linguistic and geographic differences are legitimate reasons for segregating congregations. However, most modern-day Christians would condemn you out of hand should you even consider mentioning the practical and moral benefits of racially homogeneous congregations. One of the main reasons for this revival of gnostic anthropology is the influence of the ecclesiological teachings of Abraham Kuyper’s Neo-Calvinism and Karl Barth’s neo-orthodoxy. While Kuyper argued for miscegenation as a means of cultural development, Barth regarded national identity (apart from the Jewish version thereof) as a serious stumbling block to the unity and sanctification of the church.² Contrary to the neo-Calvinist and neo-orthodox view of race and nationhood within the church, the orthodox Protestant view embraces God-given racial diversity as an integral part of the church. R.J Rushdoony points out that from the earliest days, Christian churches were segregated along ethnic lines.³ There are some very legitimate reasons for the establishment of homogeneous churches that relate to the sanctification of the races, which I will proceed to discuss.

The Hindrance of Miscegenation

The moral status of miscegenation, as well as its destructive practical implications, has been previously discussed on this site. Homogeneous congregations can help restrain miscegenation among Christians and thereby avoid the curse this puts on the offspring of such a union (Deut 23:2).

The Preaching of Repentance

Regenerated Christians are not completely free from the constant battle against their sinful natures, which has to die via daily and continual repentance. The church, therefore, is also obliged to preach repentance and sanctification to its members. Even after conversion, black Christians would (e.g.) still be more inclined to theft and violence than white or Asian Christians.⁴ Consequently, black Christian churches should continually place a special emphasis on the sixth and seventh commandments as their people purposefully engage in an active fight against the depravity from which their entire race, as a race, suffers. Asian Christians might be more in need of lessons on having consideration for others, e.g. to use and not misuse God’s creation for the advancement of their civilization.⁵⁶ Therefore, it would be the responsibility of the minister and government in an Asian church to address and discipline the members on this issue more intensely than in a congregation of white believers, where the exact opposite sins of humanist philanthropy and tree-hugging are a much greater problem. White civilization, of course, has its own fair share of unique problems and sins in need of sanctification. An example of this would be concerning our biblical mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Blacks generally have many more children than whites, and therefore this mandate will need to be much more emphasized in white churches — especially given the low contemporary white birthrates. In black churches, there might be greater need for the pastor to exhort the congregation to a life of responsibility and a higher view of marriage.

Communal Sanctification

Sanctification does not proceed individualistically in the hearts and minds of believers. God has given us each other so that we can continually encourage and edify each other (Rom. 14:19). Christian encouragement and edification can certainly be conducted interracially, but just as men or women are often better encouraged by fellow believers of the same gender, so too would encouragement and edification be better conducted intra-racially; the members of the same race (an inalienable genetic component of every human, just like gender) have similar struggles with their depravity and sanctification. Apart from our various racial weaknesses, homogeneous churches can also be more productive than multicultural churches, as they are liberated to focus on their members’ collective strengths. While Asian churches could employ their hard-working abilities to launch productive fund-raising activities, white churches could focus more on developing intellectual theology and Christian philosophy, as well as take the lead in the development of culture and creation for the glory of God. On the other hand, black churches could in various ways encourage their members (being the most athletic race on the planet) to develop their athletic skills and glorify God by witnessing in and sanctifying the field of sports. By adopting this policy, homogeneous congregations could actually contribute more to the body of Christ as a whole.

The A Maiore ad Minus Argument of 1 Timothy 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.” (NKJV)

While still being united with people from all races in Christ’s church, children of God are called to take particular care for their ‘own’ people. That Paul is here referring to those of our own flesh and blood, rather than merely to spiritual brothers, is confirmed by his use of the a maiore ad minus rhetorical strategy: he argues for the necessity of particular love for one’s immediate family by way of reference to the general principle of love for one’s own kinsmen. This idea of particular love for one’s own kin is, of course, not foreign to Paul, despite his obedience to his calling as apostle to various nations (Rom. 9:3). This understanding of 1 Tim. 5:8 is confirmed by Calvin as well, as he writes in his commentary:

He says that they who do not care about any of their relatives, and especially about their own house, have “denied the faith.” . . . This is a kind of duty which nature itself teaches; for they are natural affections (στοργαὶ φυσικαί). And if, by the mere guidance of nature, infidels are so prone to love their own, what must we think of those who are not moved by any such feeling? Do they not go even beyond the ungodly in brutality? Towards domestics, the obligation is more strict; for they ought to take care of them for two reasons, both because they are their own blood, and because they are a part of the family which they govern.⁷

Because of the biblical command to take particular care for members of our own race, it would be wise, just as families should worship together in a particular congregation, to divide particular congregations along ethnic lines as well. In this way, the believers and the deacons of the congregation can better fulfill this obligation to take care of their own people and race.

Church Government

God has instituted many forms of government as a means to help man in his sanctification process. Apart from self-government (repentance), the most prominent forms of government that can be identified as ordained by God are civil, familial, and ecclesiastical. Kin rule is a biblical principle in the civil sphere (Deut 17:15) and (obviously) in the familial sphere as well. Despite the fact that it is never explicitly stated in Scripture, we can justly conclude from the prescription of kin rule for the other spheres of government that it would be most appropriate for ecclesiastical government as well, whether Presbyterian or Episcopal. The practical advantages to a congregation having a minister akin to his congregation has been outlined above, and the same applies to ruling elders as well. R.L. Dabney also noted that ecclesiastical union with black churches had the major disadvantage that thereby the church would be “accepting negro presbyters to rule white churches and judge white ladies.” This is a clear indication that kin rule was also a historically accepted practice in Christian churches prior to the rise of neo-Calvinism and neo-orthodoxy.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it must firstly be emphasized that multicultural or multiracial Christian congregations are not inherently sinful as such, and that practical circumstances might oblige Christians of different races to worship and enjoy other church-activities together. This is also good if it is done to the glory of God. It would also be sinful to deny any brother in Christ access to the preaching of the word or the administration of the sacraments based on racial considerations. However, given my arguments above, I cannot but conclude that it is most sinful to promote and encourage racially integrated congregations (especially in the times in which we live), since this necessarily will contribute greatly to the genocide of whites and the destruction of Western civilization. Therefore, as true children of the living God, born again, purchased by Christ, and taken into the invisible Church by the inward working of the Holy Spirit, we are rather called to promote and encourage the formation of homogeneous Christian congregations as an effective means of sanctification. These duties and benefits extend to all the members of this universal church, consisting of every nation, tongue and race, so that we can take dominion of every element of this creation, as is fitting for a bride eagerly awaiting the return of our Lord (Rev. 22:17).

 

Tweet