There is a great divide between godliness and worldliness. Christians are called out of the world (Jn. 17:6) and are therefore hated by the world (Jn. 15:19). Christians are commanded to not love the world or the things that are of the world. The love of the world is the antithesis of the love of our Heavenly Father (1 Jn. 2:15). In these verses the world stands for all that is opposed to God and His holiness. As Christians we are to reject the world and oppose worldly thinking, practices, and trends. Jesus warns that rejection of the world will lead the world to hate us, but that this ought to be cause for rejoicing since the world hated the prophets and ultimately Jesus Himself (Matt. 5:11-12; Lk. 6:22-23). The world is constantly seeking to oppose Christian morality, and so Christians will naturally find themselves at enmity with the world. Therefore as Christians we are not be conformed to the image of the world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12:2). My objective is to analyze the subject of worldliness as it applies to the issue of race. Any Christian with a properly calibrated moral compass must discern how the world uses the concept of race to accomplish its agenda. When Christians become apathetic to worldliness we know that there is a serious problem. This is largely the case with Western Christianity today, and this is not limited to race.
The alienist mindset on race is entirely of the world. The world teaches that race is a social construct and thus has no objective biological reality, while idiosyncratically acknowledging the reality of race when blaming the white race for the world’s problems. The world’s ideas and morals are not consistent or intellectually honest. That’s what makes them so evil. The world encourages interracial marriage, transracial adoption, and mass migration of non-whites into white countries, decoupling national identity from racial and ethnic similarity. Alienist Christians agree with the world on all of these issues, and rival the most worldly among us in their advocacy of all of these causes. How can an alienist possibly defend their position when it is obvious that it is in agreement with the anti-Christian world? One attempt at a defense is provided by R.C. Sproul, Jr., who made this statement while defending interracial marriage:
Some have argued that my own position is grounded in worldliness. Those outside the church are always seeking to break down barriers, to deconstruct cultures. Miscegenation, my critics would argue, plays right into the hands of the political and theological left. I would offer two retorts. First, a healthy understanding of the antithesis, of the great battle between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman doesn’t mean we are to be reactionary, that we are to embrace the opposite of what the world embraces always and everywhere. We aren’t called to walking on our hands because the unbelievers walk on their feet. Because those outside the kingdom of God retain the remnants of the image of God, we should expect to agree with them from time to time.1
Sproul offers two arguments in light of his ostensible agreement with the world on the issue of race. First, he states that Christians are not called to “be reactionary.” He provides the example of Christians “walking on our hands because the unbelievers walk on their feet.” This is a profoundly ridiculous, apples-to-oranges comparison. The Bible obviously does not speak of worldliness as doing normal human functions like eating, sleeping, walking, or breathing, which are common to all people. Godliness as opposed to worldliness is concerned with moral and theological truths. Consequently agreement with the anti-Christian world on moral issues like miscegenation is altogether different from agreeing that 2 + 2 = 4.
Sproul’s second argument is that unbelievers and even overt anti-Christians “retain the remnants of the image of God”; therefore “we should expect to agree with them from time to time.” Sproul’s statement deserves further consideration. First, it is true that all people are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27). This image has been harmed by sin to the extent that our moral faculties cannot be trusted as a final authority (1 Cor. 4:4), although we retain enough of a moral conscience that we are still accountable before God for our actions (Rom. 1:18-32). Unbelievers practice self-deception to such an extent that they manage to sear their own consciences and blunt their perception of right and wrong (1 Tim. 4:1-2). The twentieth century witnessed extensive changes in opinions on important moral issues. This trend in public opinion has been decidedly leftward, and these trends are not because of a revival of Christian beliefs. Gallup polls indicate steadily increasing support for practices such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and even “gay adoption.” Evidence is even mounting that suggests that Americans are rapidly accepting the deconstruction of biology sex in its entirety and are prepared to accept “transgender rights.”
These are the people with whom Sproul says we would “expect to agree…from time to time” because they “retain the remnants of the image of God.” Sproul rejects the leftward trends on the opinions that I just mentioned, but he is in full agreement with the trending opinions on race. Gallup polls indicate that acceptance of interracial marriage has steadily been on the rise since polls were first conducted during the late 1950s in which approval has gone from 4% and is now approaching 90%. We must ask ourselves what is behind all of these trends. If opposition to interracial marriage (miscegenation) was simply the outworking of anti-Christian hatred, as Sproul and other alienists maintain, is it a mere coincidence that this opposition is waning at the same time that traditional Christian morality declines?
This is not a trivial question. Christians will agree with non-Christians on moral issues only insofar as unbelievers unconsciously borrow from Christian moral principles. Some people are nominal Christians, deists, or secularists who nevertheless inconsistently and sometimes idiosyncratically adhere to Christian morality. This is why eighteenth-century deists who were nevertheless culturally and nominally Protestant retained so much Christian morality. Conversely, our society has strayed far from Christian moral foundations as the collective beliefs of our society have deviated from the theological truths of Christianity. This can be seen in how the consensus in Western society on moral issues has changed dramatically over the course of the twentieth century.
Academia has recently ramped up its anti-white rhetoric. George Ciccariello-Maher, a professor at Drexel University has recently called for white genocide and praised the Haitian slaughter of whites (which included many women and children) in the early nineteenth century. He will not lose his job. Another professor, Adam Kotsko of Shimer College, has stated that whites must commit mass suicide for our collective “complicity” with slavery. These two recent examples are simply iterations of the position taken by Harvard University professor Noel Ignatiev, who advocates for the abolition of the white race.2
To make matters worse, these ideas are not just confined to academic and scientific establishment in the West. Hollywood is an enthusiastic supporter of miscegenation and white genocide. Several currently popular television series prominently feature interracial couples. This is particularly striking considering that the moral consensus earlier in the twentieth century was so strongly opposed to miscegenation that even Hollywood insisted that such relationships should not be portrayed in film.3 Major sports leagues also toe the line. Racial integration of sports teams preceded integration in general society and played a major role in what has become known as the “civil rights movement.” Sports leagues such as the NFL promote degeneracy and encourage the false narrative of white police shooting poor defenseless innocent black victims. The anti-white narrative has become ubiquitous, and can be found in advertising, mainstream news, cinema, academia, and in government at all levels and in all branches.
Answering Possible Objections
Sproul and others attempt to deflect these observations by accusing Christian ethnonationalists (et al.) of being “influenced by worldly wisdom” because opposition to miscegenation is purportedly derived from “Darwin’s theory of evolution.” Sproul provides no evidence to back his claim other than to say that a “cursory glance at the literature” will vindicate him. He doesn’t specify the literature to which he is referring, and similar claims are frequently made with virtually no effort to cite supporting sources.4 Contemporary Darwinism grounded in academia most certainly does not agree with an ethnonationalist or traditional position on race, national identity, or interracial marriage. The mainstream scientific establishment is firmly committed to the idea that race is a mere social construct. This is the position taken by all major universities and colleges throughout the Western world, and they are every bit as committed to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Sproul’s contention that ethnonationalists and other racial identitarians are simply applied Darwinists is dishonest and misleading.
Christian alienists might object that they do not agree with the anti-white metanarrative that has become fashionably entrenched within our postmodern society. They simply do not believe that race is important or ought to play a foundational role in society. Many alienists posit a false dichotomy in which one either believes that race is important or that it is not, placing themselves decidedly in the latter camp. This argument fails to appreciate all of the differences among those that consider race to be important. Christian ethnonationalism is easily distinguished from competing worldviews in that it places the significance of ethnic nationhood in the realm of God’s divine plan for His own glorification. Furthermore, secular white nationalists idiosyncratically support whites and Western civilization often for purely materialistic reasons. Finally, many anti-white leftists allow race to be invoked only as a weapon against white people. Race is said to be a mere social construct until it is needed to collectively bludgeon whites for the purported atrocities of our ancestors.
Two observations are in order. First, while I do not doubt that alienist Christians generally do not support the overt anti-white narrative that has been adopted by our modern culture, they do little to actively oppose it. Most of them offer only lukewarm resistance to hatred against white people, and when they do they are quick to disclaim any particular loyalty to whites as their people. Second, alienists typically give tacit approval to the anti-white status quo by pandering to the masses on the issue of race. The result is the same whether we are discussing the PCA’s infamous Overture 435 or the endless onslaught of leftist articles on race published on John Piper’s Desiring God website. Russell Moore has written a number of op-eds for the New York Times like his recent piece, “A White Church No More.” Moore’s public messages always follow this pattern. There are numerous other examples that could be provided, and virtually no counter-examples of mainstream Christians or denominations defending whites from the anti-white spirit of the age even on egalitarian grounds.
Pastors cannot be troubled to defend even basic traditional Christian morality in an age when morality is in precipitous decline, but never fail to deliver when asked to denounce “racism” and affirm the value of “diversity” (white genocide). The Bible’s teaching on worldliness makes it clear that the behaviors, attitudes, and priorities of the world are to be rejected. Jesus pronounced woes on those who seek and accept the acclaim of the world, for they follow the example of the false prophets (Lk. 6:26). This perfectly describes the modern Church. Her leaders seek prominence and approval from the world, and thus have turned their collective backs on traditional Christian morality. Judgment will surely not be long in coming. Jesus warned the lukewarm Laodiceans that they would be vomited out, so he commanded them to repent. For Christians who seek to remain faithful to what God has revealed His people about race in His word the choice is clear. We must remain faithful in this time of mass apathy, betrayal, and apostasy. Christians who follow the world on race and other important issues will be thrust out in time. The die is cast. The line is drawn in the sand. Be on the right side of history or be cut down.
- Nil Desperandum has already written an excellent response to Sproul here. ↩
- For more examples of anti-white attitudes being normalized in institutions of higher education see here and here. ↩
- The Hays Code was perhaps overly restrictive in some ways, but it insured that the content of American cinema remained wholesome. Among other restrictions, the Hays Code insisted, “Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black races) is forbidden.” ↩
- This assertion strikes me as similar to the claims made by skeptics who insist that distinctly Christian miracles such as the Virgin Birth of Jesus are lifted from the accounts of pagan deities. When one traces these claims back, no original sources are provided. It turns out that statements such as these are just reposted on social media until they become an unchallenged trope. Both of these claims are false. Ethnonationalism is not derived from Darwinian evolution, and Christian doctrines such as the Virgin Birth are not derived from pagan sources. ↩
- For a response to Overture 43 see “The PCA and Resolution 43” on Iron Ink and “A Response to Rev. Gregory A. Ward” on Tribal Theocrat. ↩