Self-Evident Things: The Folly of the Anti-Racist Minister
Nominally conservative churches hold as sacred the moral imperative that all the races should mix, and never unmix. And they proudly disagree with their righteous Christian ancestors on this point.
“If anyone denies self-evident things, he is not to be met with arguments, but should be committed, or visited with punishment, as one either lacking sense or needing punishment.”
– Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology 2.6.18
There’s no end in sight these days to what liberal “impastors” in anti-churches profess from the pulpit—polyamory, land acknowledgements, bodily mutilations for “identity,” drag shows, witchcraft, trusting women to abort their babies in honor of Eve, and on and on. Nominally conservative churches reject all of this, but there is one thing on which they agree wholeheartedly with all the liberals, the Marxists, the Satanists, and the androgynous creatures at your local coffee shop who look like they/them fell face-first into the tackle box: they hold as sacred the moral imperative that all the races should mix, and never unmix. And they proudly disagree with their righteous Christian ancestors on this point.
During the course of the last few decades, it seems that every time a denomination belched out a new racial reconciliation measure from their summer confabs, it brought to mind the byline for the interracial movie Love is a Many Splendored Thing: “5,000 Years of Tradition Swept Aside in Thrilling Moments of Enchanted Love.” The churches had long since caved on sexual equality; racial equality was simply the next liberal project for them.
More than 20 years ago, Morton Smith, one of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America, lamented (here, p. 14) the growing control of liberals whose “whole program [is] to abandon the Southern roots from which the majority of the PCA has come, which goes counter to the founding of the denomination as a Continuing Southern Presbyterian Church.” Following the General Assembly’s racial reconciliation measure in 2002, the editor of Presbyterian & Reformed News wrote (here, p. 18):
Repentance is not usually accompanied with glee, but when the General Assembly passed [this resolution] and thereby confessed its sins of bigotry, racism, and oppression, virtually the whole body gave itself a standing ovation, congratulating itself on its repentance. We had always thought that repentance implied rectifying the wrong. But [this was] repentance that doesn’t cost us anything.
The PCA was designed in 1973 to “follow the pattern of the Assembly of 1861.” You know, the men who taught that “the hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage,” and “all virtue in civilization would be lost if women were emancipated from the rule of men.” Originally, the men’s dormitories at Reformed Seminary in Jackson, MS, were named Dabney Hall and Thornwell Hall.
Thus far has the PCA fallen, and the experience of Southern Presbyterians has been shared by all other Christians. Long before Russell Moore was at its helm, Andrew Lewis wrote in Christianity Today, “Everyone has been offered the opportunity to become children of God. This demands the destruction of racial and ethnic barriers.” And then he immediately contradicted himself: “However, the mission of the Gospel goes beyond destroying barriers; it also celebrates racial and ethnic distinctiveness.”
This sort of double-mindedness is typical of liberals. Just last year in Arizona, Reformed Baptist Pastor Jeff Durbin said that while there is “an inordinate amount of White people” in his area, he loves “the diversity among us, the different colors, the backgrounds, the tribes.” And then he contradicted himself again, saying from the pulpit, where God’s Word is to be proclaimed, that the belief that White people should have White children to save the West is “disgusting,” “insidious,” “awful,” “disgraceful,” and “abominable,” and those who teach this should “shave their heads” and sit in “sackcloth and ashes.” Is Durbin proud of ethnic diversity, or does he deny that it should mean anything to anyone? Asking such questions misses the point that he simply seeks to anathematize millions upon millions of his own White Christian ancestors. He does this for social credit. It’s not more complicated than that.
This is a form of White idealism whereby Whites are guilty of all things, and thus responsible for all things. When Whites shoulder the blame for social collapse (taking on themselves to the extreme what Kipling called the White Man’s Burden), they can congratulate themselves for being superior in showing pity to others. When Whites proudly take the blame for all dysfunction, they can secretly congratulate themselves for being the people who really matter, the real change agents of history; everyone else is just along for the ride.
This is essentially a perversion of White supremacy, and once you see it, you can’t unsee it. They want racial and ethnic barriers destroyed in the name of Jesus, but they also don’t want to offend minorities, who consider colorblindness to be dehumanizing to them. This leaves them uncomfortably straddling a fence that separates minorities on one side, with their acceptable and time-honored racial, religious, and cultural practices, from Whites on the other, whose racial identity has been and can only be used for evil.
You can see an example of this in R.J. Rushdoony’s essay, “The New Racism”:
The Western mind, common to Europe and the Americas, is a product, not of race, but of culture, religious culture. Elements of it, none too good, go back to the barbarian peoples of Europe. Other aspects are from Greek philosophy, again none too good... The Western mind and culture, in all its advances, is a product of Biblical religion. It is a religious, not a racial, product.
Charles Hodge contradicted this:
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...these varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those causes as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose.
Since the Great Awokening, especially, which began around the time that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin, we’ve seen countless cases of egalitarian pastors condemning Whites for exhibiting the same natural affections that non-Whites have never ceased to proudly exhibit. It’s useful to look back to that time and earlier to see what egalitarian pastors were teaching.
John Piper took the occasion of the Martin shooting to exclaim that the “ethnocentric self” must be crucified with Christ. He would never write a missive about the abuse, persecution, rape, and murder of Whites, but in this case, he concluded that “Jesus died and rose again to say no to racial reactions that result in dead boys.” He said that it’s “idolatry...to fear the browning of America.” There will be “racial harmony” when “the old earthly stabilities” have been “shaken up.” He suggests that those who are “resentful” and “threatened” by this new order and “possessive of culture and place” are not really trusting in God.
Piper joined Tim Keller and Anthony Bradley for a conference called “Race and the Christian.” Keller used Daniel 9, where Daniel repents of the sins of his ancestors, and Joshua 7, where Achan’s sin results in the stoning of his entire family, as proof that White guilt is obligatory, and we must repent of slavery and everything else that blacks don’t like. So, for those keeping score, Whites as a race are culpable for the “sin” of some of their ancestors owning African slaves, and Germans as a nation are culpable for WWII, but blacks are never responsible for crimes committed by their Trayvons.
Bradley asked Keller: “How do we think biblically, how do we think about the gospel, how do we think about the kingdom and all that God has in creation as relates to those who object to interracial marriage?” Keller’s response: “I think it’s idolatry to insist that you should only marry within your race.”
In similar trend-jumping fashion, Bradley appeared on Fox News to call all 47 of the Duke lacrosse players liars, implied that at least one of them was a rapist, and implored them to come forward and “tell the truth” about “what really happened.” Three of them were tried and exonerated, and only five months ago, Crystal Mangum, the accuser, admitted that she “made up a story that wasn’t true,” because she “wanted validation.”
But back to Piper. It turns out that corrupting natural affections unbalances a man’s life in many other ways. Piper is notable for his pacifism, and also his pluralism. He has written:
God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order... Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths)... [R]epression of free exercise of religion and persuasion is as wrong against Christians as it is against secularists. We believe this tolerance is rooted in the very nature of the gospel of Christ... [T]he spiritual, relational nature of God’s kingdom is the ground of our endorsement of pluralism.
He reiterates that he does “not...want to establish Christianity as the law of the land.” He wants to turn “barriers into blessings,” when in fact barriers are great blessings. As Robert Frost said, good fences make good neighbors. If barriers are bad because they cause inequality, then private property must be abolished.
Piper calls interracial marriage “a positive good” to be “celebrated.” He takes this stand in support of racial “harmony,” but he admits that the purpose is “nullify[ing] ethnic advantages and feelings of superiority or exclusion.” The alienist always promotes harmony with his words but uniformity with his actions. And like every other alienist today, Piper believes that racial and ethnic differences should be erased because our salvation is not based on them. As Stephen Wolfe has wisely observed, “The guys who attacked ‘gnosticism’ for decades are now telling us that by grace we’re all the same.”
Piper even accuses those of us who oppose miscegenation of supporting abortion, because if we insist that our grandchildren look like us, we are killing the offspring of potential mixed marriages, just like Margaret Sanger.
Along with this, he claims that “transracial adoption may prove to be one of the most significant long-term impulses of racial harmony and diversification among us.” There is even a “Racial Harmony Sunday” every year at Piper’s church, which coincides with MLK’s birthday.
Men like Piper always confuse categories, taking the metaphor of “one new man” in Christ (Eph. 2:15), which is properly understood as “fellow citizens…of the household of God” (v. 19), and trying to use it to amalgamate the nations. Thus he says:
Inter-ethnic marriage in this new humanity is one manifestation and one means of Christ being all in all…
And elsewhere:
Jesus is the end of ethnocentrism. Not color but faith in Christ, that is the mark of the kingdom.
This reminds me of when RC Sproul Jr. was asked if it’s a sin to marry outside one’s race. He said this is not possible, because marriage is for humans! The goal is always to pretend that race doesn’t exist, and the things that give us natural identity (leading to familiarity and trust) are not given by the wise purpose of God for our peace and prosperity, but are purely accidental and must be overcome by us in the name of “love.”
See this 2021 article by David VanDrunen of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
Perhaps the most important thing to say about race, in the typical American sense of the word, is that it does not exist. Unlike sex, it has no biological reality, and unlike ethnicity, it has no cultural reality… Race…is a figment of the human imagination. One way to put it is that race is a social construct.
This is like a French chef trying to convince his patrons that butter is a culinary construct. Never forget that when James Watson, the greatest living expert on genetics, who discovered the DNA double helix in 1953, said otherwise, he was immediately shunned by all the government-sponsored think-tanks and stripped of his funding. Race-denying pastors never suffer in any way for disagreeing with what all Christians used to believe.
James Jordan has often confused categories in similar fashion. He wrote:
Do we as Christians believe in “nationalism”? No, we don’t. We believe in the international, catholic, universal community of the Church. We also should believe in international, catholic, universal free markets and free trade.
Pastor Tim Bayly laid guilt trips on Christians for refusing to expose their families to the threats of mass racial migration. And keep in mind, this is not the typical rabid leftist, even though he agrees fundamentally with leftists on race, but a PCA pastor whose blog was hosted by World Magazine. He wrote:
I can say with firmness that when we Christians make choices concerning where we live and where our children are taught in such a way that we are able to maintain our pristine lives without threat from the outside, we are going directly against the command of our Lord Jesus Who warned that the loveless would always protest, “Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or sick or naked?” Whitebread schools and neighborhoods and churches are, after all, quite dangerous for Christians because they rob us of our Lord Jesus.
Kevin Swanson quotes James 1:27 as a directive to adopt children, and if you don’t have tens of thousands of dollars to do it, your church must raise the money for you! All in the name of the “gospel,” you see. And if two Haitians can be bought for the price of one Russian, well, that’s just good stewardship. What soul-winner could pass up a two-for-one bargain?
To make this even more absurd, Elizabeth, Colorado, where Swanson lives and produces his show, is 94% White with almost no blacks. The ratio of Trayvons to Reformed preachers who pontificate about racial equality is miniscule.
How did pastors so easily adapt to the postwar consensus on race? When the war was barely over, UNESCO published The Race Question in 1950, where we learn:
There is...no biological justification for prohibiting intermarriage between persons of different ethnic groups.
This was simply the doctrine of the Communist victors. Article 123 of the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union states:
[A]ny advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness...is punishable by law.
And see the 1973 Humanist Manifesto II:
We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate... For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other... We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community.
And the United Nations’ 1978 Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice:
All human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock... The differences between the achievements of the different peoples are entirely attributable to geographical, historical, political, economic, social, and cultural factors. Such differences can in no case serve as a pretext for any rank-ordered classification of nations or peoples.
And the European Union’s Council Directive 2000/43/EC of June 29, 2000:
The European Union rejects theories which attempt to determine the existence of separate human races.
Most pastors simply syncretized the gospel with postwar, Communist-directed race-mixing, and Boomers were raised on this diet, but it still took bayonets at their backs to force them to cede their righteous traditions.
And now the left has moved on entirely from colorblindness. Critical Race Theory, borrowing from the Critical Theory of Jewish Marxists, calls for the destruction of “whiteness,” which is a naked call for genocide. Derrick Bell, who is principally credited with CRT, shared Communist agitator Paul Robeson’s belief that “Black self-reliance and African cultural continuity should form the epistemic basis of Blacks’ worldview.”
But liberal White pastors have never moved beyond their colorblindness. Until the final Boomer, they will swear that race does not exist, even though only deluded White people actually believe this. For a surgical dissection of their beliefs, see the excellent rebuttals by Michael Spangler and Cody Justice to recent sermons preached by Gavin Beers of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) (FCC). I’ll summarize the scriptural arguments.
Beers calls for religious unity instead of ethnic cohesion, but Scripture recognizes the value of ethnic groups, from Genesis 10:5 (nations divided by their languages) to Revelation 7:9 (“all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues”). Beers argues that cultural sins are ethical, not biological, but Scripture tells us that sin is embodied (Rom. 7:23, “sin which is in my members”), and biology influences behavior (Titus 1:12, where Paul affirms the persistent natural, rather than externally-influenced, proclivities of the Cretians). While not deterministic, biology matters (Japheth’s enlargement and Canaan’s curse carry to their descendants in Genesis 9).
Beers argues that the gospel alone transforms nations, but Ezekiel 36:26–27 (“a new heart”) promises spiritual renewal, not civilizational parity. Some non-White Christian nations have never and will never match the advancement of White Christian nations, because race matters, and pretending that over an unlimited amount of time the field will be leveled under gospel influence is fantasy.
Beers argues that pride of heritage is sinful, but Psalm 16:6 (“The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage”) allows gratitude to God for his providential gifts, including race. Genesis 24:3–4 (Isaac’s wife of near blood) shows that ethnic preference is godly, not sinful. Acts 17:26 shows that racial divisions are divinely purposed, and Romans 11:24 (“grafted into their own olive tree”) shows that racial identity can drive repentance. Nehemiah 13:23-27 shows a godly magistrate promoting racial unity and opposing mixed marriages.
Beers uses passages like Exodus 12:45–49 and Deuteronomy 31:16–22 to argue that segregation in ancient Israel was primarily religious, not racial. But all the prohibitions on intermarriage are identified racially rather than religiously, such as Deuteronomy 7:3–4. While the motive was religious purity, the means was racial segregation. Beers views Israel through a modern prism of “rights,” completely ignoring the fact that, as George Gillespie taught, foreigners in Israel were not citizens. They retained distinct political status that prevented them from owning tribal land, so that national Israel was preserved. Deuteronomy 17:15 (“Thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother”) excludes foreigners from leadership. Leviticus 19:34 and similar passages urge kindness to the stranger, not unrestricted immigration. Hospitality must be prudential. The phrase, “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you,” applies narrowly to religious participation (as in the Passover), not ethnic or civil equality.
Beers calls the prioritizing of race a “satanic misdirection” from heart piety. Were Nehemiah and Josiah satanically misdirecting their piety to political action? He says that desiring immigrants of the same race or ethnicity violates the moral law, because Colossians 3:2 informs us that grace (spiritual priorities) supersedes nature (natural affections). On the contrary, grace affirms natural duties (Eph. 5:29, 1 Tim. 5:8), allowing racial prudence in marriage and policy. The fifth commandment (“Honor thy father and thy mother”) gives us the most fundamental of natural duties toward men, prioritizing family.
Beers argues that God’s judgment at Babel was a moral lesson about rebellion, not national division. On the contrary, it scattered humanity according to the dominion mandate (Gen. 1:28, “replenish the earth”), which centralization thwarted. Scripture affirms a positive divine plan for diversity and national division (Deut. 32:8, God “separated the sons of Adam” and “set the bounds of the people”; and in Acts 17:26–27, he “determined the bounds of their habitation…that they should seek the Lord”).
Beers argues from the tower of Babel and from 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (Scripture equips “unto all good works”) that nationhood is punitive, ignoring its providential goodness. He is contradicted by Genesis 12:3 (God blesses all nations through Abraham) and Revelation 5:9, 7:9 (“every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,” standing “before the throne, and before the Lamb”). Scripture is clear that the nations endure. Scripture is sufficient for salvation (2 Tim. 3:15); it’s not intended as a comprehensive textbook on politics.
Beers argues that love of place is sentimental, but Scripture affirms such affection (Ps. 137:5–6, love for Jerusalem; cf. Rom. 9:3, Paul’s kin-love). Beers creates a false dichotomy between Scripture and nature. Scripture assumes natural realities (Gen. 1:27, male and female; Gen. 5:3, familial resemblance).
Of course, this is more than just arguing about Bible verses. When a pastor like Beers uses “culture” as a euphemism for race, what he is really saying is that the genocide being inflicted upon us by planned mass racial replacement is merely a “cultural” issue to him, no more serious than how far you might have to drive for lamb souvlaki.
Those who teach that race isn’t real are teaching utter nonsense, on par with the sophistry that matter only seems to exist by how we perceive the world. When Dr. Samuel Johnson was told of George Berkeley’s theory of idealism, he kicked a stone so hard that he rebounded from it, and exclaimed, “I refute it thus!” And this is what we who are race realists and kinists are doing. As Matt Walsh recently said:
[R]ace is an inherited trait, which means it’s real. If I walk around claiming I’m a black man, you know that the claim is ridiculous and false. If race isn’t real, then my claim to blackness is just as valid as Morgan Freeman’s. But everyone knows that’s absurd. Because everyone knows race is real.
Except for your typical pastor or theologian today. Take Andrew Sandlin, for instance, who claims that we should be “ideationally” rather than ethnically homogenous. Sandlin has said:
Blood and soil mean much less here [in America] than ideas. Not race or place, but ideas, have always been at the root of what it means to be an American.
After claiming that “racial segregation is an affront to God’s order,” Sandlin proceeded to say “that homosexuals should enjoy the same civil rights as heterosexuals.” He advocates “full political...rights” for those who are engaged in what the Bible calls an abomination. He supports religious pluralism, even once applauding George W. Bush’s “confidence in the power of the Gospel” so “that he does not believe the Gospel needs to be propped up by statist guarantees. In short, he believes in religious liberty.” He is pleased that our “national character is sustained by the words of faiths other than Christianity.”
The only way to get a political order that totally ignores other faiths is to deport their disciples or deny them citizenship. (Then, of course, we would not have the United States of America.)
Sandlin is proud today that his daughter cross-dresses as a police officer because years ago, while she was growing up, he was busily denouncing Christian patriarchy as “a revival of pagan tribalism.” He wrote:
Familial utopians (usually fathers) covet the “perfect family,” and are willing to wreak havoc on wives and children—and themselves—to produce that idyllic family. The wife is not permitted her own opinions but must march in lockstep to her dictator-husband; the children are treated and expected to act as miniature adults (a pagan Enlightenment trait); the church must bow to the wishes of the dictator-husband…
And then there’s the worship of the family—the family becomes the center of life, generally with the father as the benevolent dictator. The mother’s role is to bear children and cook food and keep her mouth shut. The children’s task is to grow up to be just like Mommy and Daddy—no matter what God may want. This is the course of ancient tribalism and, today, certain segments (not all) of the vigorous pro-family movements.
But this is all quite tame compared to Pastor (some call him Rabbi) Douglas Wilson. While we believe that culture is religion poured over ethnicity; for Wilson, culture is a purely ideological construct, and the genetic component is not real.
You can see a good example of this in his response to Michael Spangler’s first article on Christian race realism, where Wilson tries to argue that the only thing that has made the West great is the gospel. Spangler correctly responds: “The printing press was not properly a product of the gospel. Neither was the steam engine, or the Internet,” and that it is a slander to assert, as Wilson does, that we “treat whiteness as the gospel.”
Wilson has also written:
Psalm 115 makes clear that we become like the gods we worship... [D]ifferent cultures and races behave differently…[due to] the gods we worship. Culture is always created by cultus, worship. When you worship false gods for millennia, it is hard to get that out of the system. The pagan gods of Africa were different from the pagan gods of Europe, and both were different from the rising pagan system in America today. Different false gods lead to different kinds of cultural sinfulness.
He has never explained how this results in starkly different “Christian” Congolese culture versus pagan Japanese culture. Apparently, one false god makes someone rape and cannibalize his sister while another false god returns lost wallets left behind on the bullet train.
Notice how closely Wilson’s ideology conforms to two of James Burnham’s 39 core beliefs of liberalism:
There are no significant differences in intellectual, moral or civilizing capacity among human races and ethnic types.
Everyone is entitled to political and social rights without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Recently, after Wilson accused “antisemites” of being “envious” of Jews for being “high performance,” Pastor Andrew Isker famously asked him, “What if it’s not envy?” This is nothing new for Wilson. In a long-deleted blog post (broken link here, quotes taken from it was live) Wilson said the “striking, stark, and obvious” evidence for the “cultural superiority of the Jews” is that they are “capitalists and entrepreneurs.”
[A]nti-Semitism therefore, while sometimes clothed in gospel talk, is the ungospel, the anti-gospel. It does whatever it can to impede the fulfillment of the Great Commission, including the fulfillment of that commission to the Jews.
He calls freedom of association a good thing in principle, but he says here that the “bigotry” of Lester Maddox in choosing his own business clientele would be met with discipline if done by a member of his church. Who could have guessed that the “gospel” aligned perfectly with the goals of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s all along?
Wilson calls himself a “biblical absolutist” but says, “I do not want to send homosexuals to their deaths.” This is similar to what the pro-life movement has done in condemning a practice while removing from it any consequences. Without the penalty of law, sin is allowed to thrive under the guise of “liberty.”
He calls pornography a bad thing, but his libertarianism prevents him from actually outlawing it:
With a biblical approach...pornography would not be the crime, it would be the evidence of the crime... When pornography is made and distributed, it should simply be used as evidence of the adultery or of the sodomy, etc. If the evidence does not demonstrate a crime addressed as a crime in Scripture, then the problem should be addressed through the governments of family or church, without the threat of civic penalties, or it should be left alone. We do not have the capacity to legislate wisely where God has been silent. The civil governor is God’s minister, God’s deacon. He is limited in his authority.
Wilson’s former associate, Douglas Jones, wrote in the magazine that the two of them edited for many years (republished here), that for parents “to forbid...a marriage solely on the basis of race is sinful”; and to belong to a racially exclusive club is sinful and worthy of excommunication. Jones wrote that if “race has no biblical significance, then the state has no right to legislate in a way which makes race significant.” This would logically prevent any nation from restricting immigration and determining its own ethnic and religious composition.
In 2006, Jones preached a sermon at Wilson’s church called “Who are Your People?” He used 1 Peter 2:10 as a springboard for his Babelist propaganda: “[Ye] in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God.” He concludes from this verse:
Neither Scots, Spaniards, Saxons, nor Zulus are a people... In the end, only the Church International is the people of God. We have something very revolutionary going on in the New Testament. We have, in a sense, all bloodlines being suppressed as unimportant... So our tribe, our people, actually come out of Zulus, come out of Scots, come out of Finns, come out of everywhere, to make a new people of God... Blood doesn’t matter, in this case... Christ comes along and says, “This blood isn’t important”; His Blood is important... You are not bound by blood, you are not bound by nationality; you are bound by baptism.
Scratch a little deeper in all such cases, and you invariably find that they all consider the Jews to be a People eternally, the only DNA that matters, with their own unfulfilled covenant promises.
The libertarian, race-mixing judeophilia of Doug & Douger reached its crescendo when they called for the church to “own the curse” of sodomy. “You don’t rebuke people for their genetic predispositions,” wrote Wilson on the topic of race, but for sodomy he reversed position and wrote that “we should readily grant homosexual genetic claims”!
Christian fathers are a primary cause of the curse of homosexuality… [W]e need to own the cultural curse. By this, we mean we must accept the fact of it as just… Jeremiah said to “seek the peace of the city” (Jer. 29:7), not protest pagan legislation. Under a curse, we should own the curse of same-sex marriage and not fight it so far as it concerns them…
In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage (or with those seeking to impose it). We ought to declare publicly (frustrating both sides) that we embrace this curse…
For the sake of argument, we should readily grant homosexual genetic claims. God controls everything, and so we can grant any and all scientific claims about the genetic bases of sin. Accept it all in the providence of God. Every sin is genetically grounded, and yet, in a Christian cosmos, we are still responsible…
True repentance in the Church, not trust in civil coercion, will either restore that order or establish a different order. So we openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for wicked fathering within the Church.
This is probably the most insane thing that I’ve ever read from a Reformed pastor. He even suggests that “gay-baiting” (whatever that means) and sodomy are similarly sinful:
The antithesis is not between left and right but between faithfulness and unfaithfulness—between faithfulness and sodomy, but also between faithfulness and gay-baiting.
He even calls God-ordained marriage “queer” because men and women are different, and “Jehovah teaches us to love difference”:
What God did at the beginning is truly queer—male and female created He them.
Later, Wilson clarified that “we cannot fight sodomy politically without using the enemy’s weapons the way the enemy uses those same weapons.” Even his clarifications are absurd. He always retreats into a foggy maze of words, which is one of the worst things that a purported minister of the gospel can do.
An historical point these pastors forget is that all the decisions that led to Obergefell and now child-mutilation and surrogate-farming for pederasts had their source in the Loving v. Virginia decision by the Supreme Court to legalize interracial marriage. The 2003 Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case in Massachusetts, which led to Obergefell, cited Loving 8 times, and the illegal 14th Amendment to the Constitution, on which Loving was based, at least 5 times. Obergefell cited Loving a dozen times, and the 14th Amendment 14 times. The progression of Equality was that citizenship was granted to ex-slaves, which led to interracial unions, which led to sodomite unions.
Numerous examples could be cited of pastors who have led their flocks in the way of all Kardashians. Their distinguishing characteristic tends to be an eagerness to explain away the existence of race while living in the Whitest enclaves that money can buy. This is certainly true of Wilson, whose family left Annapolis, Maryland, in the 1970s to move to Idaho, one of the Whitest states in the compulsory Union.
And then there’s Brian Abshire, who has said:
Any doctrine or practice that makes unlawful distinctions between Christians based on race, ethnicity, or national origin is a violation of the Lord’s most basic commandment to be as one and love one another and hence, a disciplinable offense.
Read more on this at the superlative kinist blog Faith & Heritage:
We ask: was David sinning by praying for God to rescue him from the hand of foreigners (Ps. 144:11)? Or was Isaiah in sin when he overtly condemned any who are “pleased with the children of foreigners” (Isa. 2:6)? The prophet Zephaniah condemned even those who wear “foreign apparel” (Zeph. 1:8)! Shall we charge the prophets, speaking under the authority of the Holy Spirit, with this supposed sin of “xenophobia”?
Alienists polish the tombs of the prophets while supporting public and private policies that violate the sixth commandment. Question 69 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism tells us that the sixth commandment forbids taking one’s own life or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatever tends to the same end. Consenting to that which threatens our survival is the same as murder.
Alienists never want to consider the present, real-world differences of examples like the one I gave earlier between 96% “Christian” Congo and 99% pagan Japan, because they would be embarrassed to explain why, if they had to be in one place or the other, they would go with the pagans every time. But they have a story they love to tell about the alleged barbarity of pre-Christian Europe. Abshire wrote:
The problem is not race but religion. The only cultural difference between white Europeans and black Africans is 1500 years of Christian history. Two thousand years ago, the English were naked savages, living in mud huts, painting their buttocks blue and eating one another. Christianity, not skin pigment, gave the English a civilization and conquered a worldwide empire for them.
It’s a lie mixed with an element of truth; there’s no doubt that Christianity transformed the warring nations and produced a largely united Europe. If not for this, Europeans would have been helpless prey for conquering Muhammadans. But as the Roman historian Tacitus wrote, Europeans even before they heard the gospel were gifted by God with many virtues basic to civilized life:
I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion...
[The woman] is reminded by the ceremony which inaugurates marriage that she is her husband’s partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare with him alike both in peace and in war... [Men] even believe that the [female] has a certain sanctity and prescience, and they do not despise their counsels, or make light of their answers...
The young men marry late, and their vigor is thus unimpaired. Nor are the maidens hurried into marriage; the same age and a similar stature is required... Their marriage code, however, is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy. Almost alone among barbarians they are content with one wife... Every mother suckles her own offspring and never entrusts it to servants and nurses.
The master is not distinguished from the slave by being brought up with greater delicacy. Both live amid the same flocks and lie on the same ground till the freeborn are distinguished by age and recognized by merit...
About minor matters the chiefs deliberate, about the more important the whole tribe. Yet even when the final decision rests with the people, the affair is always thoroughly discussed by the chiefs. They assemble...when the multitude thinks proper, they sit down armed. Silence is proclaimed by the priests, who have on these occasions the right of keeping order. Then the king or the chief...is heard, more because he has influence to persuade than because he has power to command. If his sentiments displease them, they reject them with murmurs; if they are satisfied, they brandish their spears... They choose their kings by birth, their generals for merit. These kings have not unlimited or arbitrary power, and the generals do more by example than by authority. If they are energetic, if they are conspicuous, if they fight in the front, they lead because they are admired.
In contrast to all the wretched things you’ve read in this article, consider the wise words of John Frame, the respected Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, who is now 86 years old. He wrote this 13 years ago, before the Great Awokening began. If only pastors had heeded his advice.
Scripture does not dispute the fact that certain kinds of sins abound in certain national groups and result in the judgment of those nations... People are often judged as racist for holding such empirical beliefs... I do not believe there will ever be, or should be, in this world, a society in which racial differences are abolished, or in which people do not prefer to associate with people like themselves...
It was God who placed human beings in families, so that our most intimate associations are generally those with which we are closest genetically... It is not that people outside one’s ethnic group have no souls, but it sometimes seems like that. The outsiders seem stiff and formal, or their language of friendship seems incomprehensible. You do what you need to do, and then you run home to your home base...
Churches tend to belong predominantly to one race or another, because worship is one of those times in which it is important to understand one another on an intimate level. The church is like a family; indeed it is the family of God. Much of its ministry involves communication; and communication is almost always better within ethnic limits. Blacks and whites tend to speak different languages in worship, a difference evident in their choice of music and of preaching style...
Church growth literature often advocates the “homogeneous unit principle,” which is that churches should reach out primarily to people in society who are like themselves, ethnically, culturally, and economically. This literature points out, as I have pointed out…that it is much easier to communicate the gospel within cultural groups than across them. The conclusion, then, is that cross-cultural evangelism is largely a waste of time, and that the church’s efforts should be more sharply focused on those with whom they can more effectively communicate. There is much truth in this principle...
I must say I have become skeptical about Martin Luther King’s “dream” of a society where race makes no difference... [D]ifference in skin color and basic culture creates barriers larger than those between Norman and Saxon...
Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups. It is evident that sometimes separation is necessary, at least temporarily, to achieve peace. Clearly Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims, for the foreseeable future, cannot live together in peace. The same for Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants...
We have seen that the term racism is something of a wax nose... I propose a moratorium on the use of the term.
Frame goes on to extol the value of businesses and schools of the same ethnic composition. This is just common sense that never would have been questioned by Christians who lived at any time prior to the 1950s.
When a modern minister condemns such self-evident things, we ought to heed Turretin’s warning. The man is acting like a lunatic or criminal and should be treated accordingly.
