Some older and more recent material, mostly from X:
—
From fall of 2024:
America has never been more divided than we are right now. Someone might counter, “But what about the Civil War, when we literally divided into two nations, 3,000,000 men went to war with each other, and 700,000 were killed? What about the fist fights inside of Congress and dueling politicians outside of Congress in the years leading up to the Civil War? What about the aftermath of the Civil War when regional tensions continued to run high?” I would argue that America is divided in a deeper way than we were from 1861-1865, and in the years immediately prior to and after that conflict. At least during the Civil War era there was still a theological and cultural consensus on many things. Abraham Lincoln pointed out in his second inaugural address that America was united even as she was divided:
“Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”
Today this can no longer be said. Our divisions may not be as bloody, but they are actually deeper, more profound, more intractable than in the middle nineteenth century. We no longer have a shared respect for the Bible or the creed that summarizes it. We no longer pray to the same Triune God; indeed many Americans do not pray at all and are very brazen in their rejection of Christian faith. We do not agree on when human life begins, the definition of marriage, or even what a man and woman are. We have abandoned the faith that founded our nation, and we have fallen into a culture war that is still cold (thank God) but every bit as intense as any hostility ever seen in our land. At the very heart of the conflict is a reopening of old racial wounds. As Jeremy Carl has ably demonstrated, anti-white bias is very real in virtually every sector of our nation. The rise of critical race theory, the re-narration of American history found in programs like the 1619 Project, the imposition of DEI training in education and business, the media’s constant portrayals of whites as the source of evil in America, and a myriad of other factors have created division, and that division in turn has led to a backlash, especially on the part of young white males, many of them Christian. In some cases the backlash has gone so far that some men have embraced a form of neo-Nazism.
Of course, the immigration issue is also right at the heart of this cultural conflict since it strikes at the heart of American identity and also stokes racial animosity. Going into November’s election, no issue weighs heavier than what’s happening at the southern border. The left claims open borders are a matter of compassion. In their view, America is a “proposition nation,” which means not only anyone can become an American, but anyone who wants to be an American has a right to citizenship in our country. While this is ostensibly done in the name of compassion, and it is often enabled by a kind of naïve empathy, it impossible to not be cynical about it. We have basically been a borderless country for the last four years, allowing millions upon millions of unvetted immigrants to stream in, many of them dangerous. Unlike immigrants in the past, many of today’s immigrants seem more interested in receiving benefits at taxpayer expense than they do assimilating into the traditional American way of life. While executive orders provide some cover for these immigrants, their unrestricted entrance into our nation certainly violates the laws of land, passed by the legislative branch of government, and signed into law by the executive branch. In other words, this is the real threat to our so-called democracy. Those on the political right rightly see the influx of immigrants as nothing less than a foreign invasion. It is subverting American identity, remaking the electorate, displacing the racial majority, and destroying our nation’s cultural heritage. It is a brazen attempt on the part of Democrats to turn America into a one party state for all practical purposes.
All of this raises further questions about the role of the church in America, and how American Christians should structure their loyalties and loves. No one would dispute that immigrants who enter our nation are made in the image of God. If they become neighbors, we should love them as neighbors. We should evangelize them as opportunity arises. But do those realities mean that we must accept unlimited immigration as an unqualified good? Does the gospel make us indifferent to the rule of law and what’s best for our fellow citizens?
If Christians are going to speak and act with clarity and conviction, we must understand the “ordo amoris,” the order of our loves. Discussion of the ordo amoris traces back at least to Augustine and has been a feature of Christian ethics and political theology ever since. The following theses are offered as way of helping Christians navigate these choppy waters.
1. Much of the current discussion centers on the proper love of one’s country. This is usually taken up under the category of “natural affection.” The Bible does not speak at length on the topic of natural affection in this area, but it does affirm natural affection is a virtue. The Greek term most commonly associated with natural affection is “storge.” In C. S. Lewis’ discussion of the four types of loves, he points out that affection is the basest and broadest of our loves. It can be thick or thin, depending on the nature of the relation – it is thickest towards who are closest to us, and thins out as the relationship in view is less proximate and more distant.
Natural affection is often mixed with other forms of love, especially in the closer relations. Lewis points that many of the people for whom we are obligated to have natural affection are unchosen. However, Lewis also wisely points out that natural affections can become a rival to the greater forms of love we should have for God and the church. Keeping natural affections in their proper place and in right proportion to other loves is critical, as we will see. We have to know where to slot in love of country relative to our other loves. John Calvin wisely addresses the relationship of natural affection to the higher loves:
“As it is exceedingly harsh, and is contrary to natural feelings, to make enemies of those who ought to have been in closest alliance with us, so Christ now says that we cannot be his disciples on any other condition. He does not indeed enjoin us to lay aside human affections, or forbid us to discharge the duties of relationship, but only desires that all the mutual love which exists among men should be so regulated as to assign the highest rank to piety. Let the husband then love his wife, the father his son, and, on the other hand, let the son love his father, provided that the reverence which is due to Christ be not overpowered by human affection. For if even among men, in proportion to the closeness of the tie that mutually binds us, some have stronger claims than others, it is shameful that all should not be deemed inferior to Christ alone.”
What is natural affection? The term “storge” is not used in the NT, but its negation is. In Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3, Paul says that “astorge,” the lack of natural affection, is an outflow of idolatry and a sign of apostasy. “Storge” may be best thought of as something like “love of people and place.” It is the love humans are expected to have towards those of their own kind, starting with one’s family members and extending out to one’s city, state, and nation (to put in contemporary American terms). “Astorge,” then, is a kind of hard-heartedness towards one’s own people and place. Those who (in normal circumstances) hate their own nation and their fellow citizens display “astorge.” “Storge” feeds such things as nostalgia, sentimentality, and patriotism. The special place your childhood home holds in your heart is an extension of “storge.” The fond remembrances you have of high school buddies you have not seen in years is a kind of “storge.” The swell of pride you get singing the national anthem with your hand over heart at a baseball game is a species of “storge.” Knowing you’ve got that third cousin who is handy at repairing cars and would come to aid on the side of the interstate at a moment’s notice is one of the benefits of living in a storge-rich context. On the other hand, the curmudgeon who hates his fellow citizen, scoffs at Fourth of July celebrations, and is so estranged from his own kin that he refuses to attend holiday dinners and family reunions is a man of astorge. There’s something unnatural about such behavior. Even pagans often know better.
2. Discussions of ordo amoris today are often centered on preference, our supposed natural desire to be with people like ourselves. “Like is drawn to like” is often treated as an axiom of human nature – and to some degree, it certainly is. In addition, preferences do matter, and have their place in some areas of life. But preference is not the most constructive way to look at the ordo amoris. The order of our loves is not just a matter of choice but of law.
Obligations are more fundamental than preferences. When it comes to the discussion of ordo amoris, we should not start by asking about our preferences but start by asking about our duties. To whom do I have the greater obligation? While the answer is not always obvious, Scripture does provide us with a map to guide our affections and structure our loyalties. It helps to think in terms of concentric circles. We have greater obligations towards those closest to us, and the obligations weaken the more distant the relation becomes.
In many cases, duties and preferences align quite easily. A mother quite naturally “prefers” her newborn baby to any other newborn baby. But more fundamentally, she has obligations to her newborn that she does not have any other baby in the world because of the bond that exists between her and her own child. Likewise, I prefer my children to your children, but what really matters is that I have an obligation to provide for my children that I do not have for your children. If I don’t provide for my own children, I am worse than unbeliever. But I have no obligation to provide for your children at all in ordinary circumstances, that’s your job and your responsibility. If to send me a tuition bill for your child’s next semester at college, I am not going to pay it because it isn’t within my sphere of responsibility. Further, I have a duty to defend my nation if it is under invasion, but I do not have a duty to defend a nation on the other side of the world if it gets invaded. Again: I have an obligation to care for my brothers and sisters in my local congregation that I do not have for Christians in some far away country. I am more invested in what happens to the church in America than I am in what happens to the church in Ghana. I have certain elders in my local church and presbytery I am bound to obey and support; these same obligations do not apply to elders in other congregations and denominations. And so on. My obligations are not evenly distributed across humanity, or across the church; rather, my obligations to particular humans are conditioned by the various ways in which we are related to one another. I ought to love everyone made in God’s image, yes, but my obligations to particular image bearers intensifies based on the relational proximity and connectedness we have to one another. I have obligations to some people that I do not have to other people, and I should structure my life – my loves, my service, my sacrifices – accordingly.
Herman Bavinck captures this well:
“The command to show love toward everyone (1 Thess. 3:12; 2 Pet. 1:7) does not preclude different degrees of that love. Some people are much closer to us than others. Some are bound to us by a physical relationship, by social or political relations, by spiritual unity, by friendship, and the like.”
3. All of the examples given above are simple, but it can get more complicated because life throws a variety of situations at us. In the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, the Samaritan has no natural affection for the man on the side of the road, nor does he have any innate preference for the man on the side of the road. (Indeed, we can probably assume he would have natural enmity for the man.) His obligation to help the man on the side of the road arises strictly from geographic proximity; the man becomes a neighbor by virtue of crossing his path. Had the Samaritan traveled another road that day, he would not have been obligated to help that particular man.
I’d argue the parable in Luke 10 is very instructive to our present situation, but possibly in a different way than many think. I have brothers and sisters in Christ in other parts of the world with whom I am spiritually united, but there isn’t really very much I can do for them. Geographic separation and the language barrier, if nothing else, keep me from being able to help them when they are in need (in most circumstances —obviously there are exceptions). But there are a lot of non-Christians in America, who are my neighbors by virtue of geographic and national proximity, and so I do have a special obligation to them. I actually can do things to help them – and in many cases, I am obligated to do so. I have certain obligations to fellow citizens that I do not have to noncitizens, Christian or not. It’s really not a matter of preference, it’s a matter of obligation, and the degree of obligation hinges on many factors, all related to proximities of different sorts.
Spiritual proximity is real, and in one sense is the deepest kind of proximity because we share an eternal destiny in Christ. But those with whom I am united in a temporal way matter as well. We are embodied creatures and so geographic proximity bears upon how I put into practice the command to love my neighbor. A neighbor by definition is someone who is close at hand.
Further, we are creatures who belong to families and nations, so those connections also factor in to the moral calculus. God recognizes the existence of nations so we must as well. He establishes the borders of nations and periods of their existence (Acts 17:26). Much of Scripture is addressed to us in terms of national identity. My citizenship is not as important as my church membership to my obligations, but there I do have obligations to my fellow countrymen.
All things being equal, I am more obligated to help my brother in Christ over non-Christians. But all things are never equal. And my duties to the body of Christ do not exhaust my duties.
4. How should we understand national identity, especially in a day in which race-based identity has come back to the foreground? Those of us who think in terms of covenant will reject race-based identity politics. Races as we tend to define them are not covenantal entities. There is no head of the black race or the white race. God does not lump all whites in the world together in order to bless them or judge them. God does not deal with men in terms of racial identities.
Nations, by contrast, do have heads and can be considered covenantal entities. Nations get blessed or judged by God in history. Nations (like families) are dealt with by God as covenantal entities. God recognizes nations and deals with nations as such because he sets their borders and allotted periods, as already noted.
The Great Commission is structured in terms of nations, not races. (Think of John Knox: He prayed for the Lord to give him Scotland, not to give him whites. He thought biblically, in terms of ethnicity/nationality, not race.) The Abrahamic covenant makes references to families and nations, not races. Psalm 2 promises Jesus will inherit nations as his redemptive possession; it is significant the redemptive promises are given in terms of nation and not race. Likewise, Isaiah spoke about nations streaming into Zion. Jeremiah describes God blessing or cursing nations:
“If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.” (Jer. 18:7-10)
Races simply do not factor into biblical theology very much. In Genesis 10, we are given a table of nations, not a table of races. Genesis 10:32 speaks of nations (70 in all) spreading out after the flood/Babel.
Doug Wilson has made the point that humans can be organized politically in terms of tribalism, nationalism, or globalism. If this is correct – and it makes sense – it should be noted that race is not one of these categories and race does not map directly only any one of these categories. There are very few races (as biological groupings) and great many nations. many people who share my race belong to a different nation, and many people who do not share my race share my nationality. Race and nation definitely intersect in various ways, but they are most certainly not identical.
All of this remains true even if we say nations usually have a high degree of racial homogeneity because no race is confined to a single nation. Nations have a genetic component, but genetics alone do not constitute a nation, and nations (like families) are usually permeable by outsiders to some degree. To share genetics is not the same as sharing a language, a place, a culture. Race alone does not constitute peoplehood. For example, when Israel came out of Egypt, a mixed multitude joined them and got incoirporated into Israel during their time of wandering in the wilderness. In other cases, Gentiles were incorporated into Israel via marriage (e.g., Boaz married a Moabitess, Ruth; Bathsheba married Uriah the Hittite; etc.). According to Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1, Jesus was a “mudblood,” with several Gentiles in his lineage.
If we go the racial/genetic route to define peoplehood, we are going to eventually end up back at Adam with all humans genetically related to each other. Humanity can be considered one race just as easily as it can be considered multiple races. (Again, I do not object to what is soemtimes “race realism” as such — humanity can be looked at in various ways and race, as a biological category, is certainly one of them, even if it carries very little theological significance.)
Duties to my nation, my commonwealth, have traditionally been dealt with under the fifth commandment. Nations have fathers we are to honor (e.g., civil magistrates). Races to do not have fathers we are to honor. There is nothing about duty to race in historic Reformed theology and ethics. The fifth commandment plays a unique role in the building and maintenance of civilization because it serves as bridge between the past and future ancestors and descendants, tradition and hope. It’s also the commandment that serves as a transition from the commandments that primarily concern our relationship with God and the commandments that primarily concern our relationship to other humans; this is because parents are the most basic representatives of God’s authority in our lives. Honoring father and mother is actually an expansive duty. We have fathers in narrow and broad senses. If we have no interest in whatsoever in carrying forward what has been bestowed upon us (insofar as what is bestowed is consistent with righteousness, of course), there is no way we can keep this commandment. There can be no civilization at all if each generation rejects everything from their fathers and mothers. Civilization is always a trans-generational project.
The fifth commandment does not make us slaves to tradition, but it does mean we should respect what we have been given. So much folly and non-sense could be avoided with a little more respect for our fathers who have gone before us. Think how much liturgical craziness in the church we could have been spared of if Christians had more intelligent and thoughtful respect for their fathers in the faith. The fifth commandment puts the brakes on political revolution, as it requires us to honor the forms of government we have been handed (within reason, of course – some governments are so oppressive they lose legitimacy). Think of the checks and balances built into the American system to prevent tyranny, such as the filibuster and the electoral college – many of the people I see wanting to tear these down so they can get their way have no idea why they were instituted in the first place (and by people much wiser than us). Think of the museums built to honor our history and our heroes, or the days set aside to celebrate national history. Sadly many memorials of our past are now being torn down (a blatant violation of the fifth commandment), a symbolic sign of a civilization entering into decay. These are natural human activities that need no justification. God has Israel set up memorials so future generations would not forget their history and it is perfectly appropriate for nations today to do the same. These are small but representative ways that we preserve our sense of nationhood and celebrate what is good about our heritage. Honoring father and mother in the family, honoring the civil fathers God has established over us, honoring the fathers who built the civilization we enjoy, is crucial. We must not neglect our national duties; to do so is to break the fifth commandment.
All that to say: Covenant consciousness is not the same as race consciousness. Thinking in terms of race has its place (e.g., the package of genetics characteristics that constitute a race are relevant to the practice of medicine), but thinking in terms of covenants, and covenantal entities such as nations and families, is more foundational.
5. We have lacked a full theology of nations and nationhood, so allow me to say a bit more along these lines.
The gospel creates unity amongst all believers; the gospel unites all who are in Christ into one people, one family, one nation. Jesus prays for the unity of his people to be manifested in the world (John 17), and that oneness is always a spiritual reality, even if our sin sometimes obscures it. There is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, as the creed says. This oneness means all believers are part of the same body; catholicity means this one church is universal, embracing all believers in all times and places. The gospel includes the reconciliation of different nations and people groups in Christ (Eph. 2:11ff), with the result that nations can beat their swords into plowshares (Isa. 2).
Thus, the gospel does not annihilate creational or providential structures like distinct families and nations, but rather sanctifies them. The gospel does not obliterate the distinction between my household and the other households that make up the membership of my local church. The gospel links us together in Christ but does not negate the integrity of each natural family. My household continues to be a real household, even as my household is incorporated into the larger household of God.
Likewise, the gospel does not negate nationalities. Nations in a group of Christianized nations would each retain their own unique identity (language, borders, culture), even as those nations are linked together in a wider network of nations we’d call Christendom. Yes, a group of Christianized and discipled nations will share many things in common because of their common submission to Christ, but they will also bring their peculiar treasures into Christ’s kingdom (Isa. 60). That indicates it is God’s will for nations as nations to continue existing. Obviously, nations come and go in history, but nations can certainly work to preserve their own nationhood.
Christendom – a collection of Christian nations – is not the same kind of program we see with secular globalism today. Indeed, it is fundamentally antithetical to it. The gospel does not destroy cultures but sanctifies and transforms them. Globalism dehumanizes; the gospel rehumanizes. Globalism destroys diversity for the sake of unity; the gospel sanctifies diversity for the sake of unity. Globalism is totalitarian; the gospel is liberating.
Within a Christian nation, the gospel will serve as the foundation of civil unity. A Christian nation, after all, is a people who seek to share not just temporal goods but the eternal good of Christ’s kingdom. A Christian nation is not a nation in which every individual is a Christian, but a nation that is committed to conforming its corporate life, its social customs, its laws and culture, to the rule of Christ as much as possible, recognizing that civil government, the church, and the family each have their own spheres and their own roles to play. The role of the civil magistrate is to enact God’s justice in the civil sphere for the good of his own nation, bringing joy to the righteous and a terror to those who do evil.
But this does not mean that two Christian nations will become identical any more than two Christian families are identical. The same principles and truths can be worked out and applied in various ways. A Christian nation is simply a nation that recognizes the truths that Christ is Lord, the church is his bride, and the Bible is his Word.
Note, then, that Pentecost in Acts 2 is not the reversal of Babel (as it is sometimes put) but the sanctification of Babel. At Pentecost, the various ethnicities do not revert to speaking one language (= Babelic globalism) but rather each hears the gospel in his own tongue (= distinct Christian nations). The point of Pentecost is not to recreate the Babelic situation, where all of humanity is smashed together into one people with one language. Rather, the point of Pentecost is to bring about the transformation of those nations downstream from Babel. History never goes backwards, it only goes forwards, and Petecost does not undo Babel but takes the gospel to the nations formed in the aftermath of a Babel. The point is not for all of humanity to speak one language again, but for the gospel to be spoken in a multitude of languages.
There is a kind of global oneness promised in the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12) and reiterated in other texts (Isaiah 2, Psalm 2, Daniel 4, etc.), and of course these promises undergird the church’s Great Commission. But the discipling of the nations does not eradicate nations, it just transforms and sanctifies them. The Great Commission does not make us faceless, placeless “global citizens.” Rather, it makes each nation Christian in a distinctive way. Thus: the Christianization of China makes the Chinese more fully and uniquely Chinese; the Christianization of Brazil will make Brazilians more fully and uniquely Brazilian; the Christianization of Canada will make Canadians more fully and uniquely Canadian; etc. The eschatological vision for the nations is one of unity and diversity, of many unique people groups joined together as one in Christ, with the oneness and manyness equally ultimate.
6. So much for nations. What about race? Because of the attack on whites and “whiteness,” many whites want to push back with a kind of “white lives matter” program. But it is crucial to understand that racial identity politics is a dead end for Christians. I obviously have various obligations to fellow neighbors on my street and to fellow citizens of my country. I have various obligations to fellow church members and family members. But I don’t see how it makes any sense to say I have some kind of obligation to my fellow white people. And I don’t need to create a racial solidarity program for whites in order to push back against anti-whiteness. Again, white people are not really a “people group” in any meaningful sense. There are many whites who are not in my nation and have no geographic or linguistic proximity to me; my obligations to them are very minimal. There are many non-whites who do have national and geographic and linguistic proximity to me; I have greater obligations to them. To frame the issue in terms of race or skin color (especially when tied to preference) is always going to be confusing and unhelpful and possibly immoral. Focusing on obligation rather than preference allows us to keep the race issue in its proper place.
To put it another way: We will not defeat critical race theory with another version of the same thing. We will not defeat racism with more racism, and we will not defeat identity politics with just another form of identity politics. We will not defeat anti-white bias with a white supremacist movement and we will not defeat Zionism with anti-Antisemitism. We will not defeat Marxism with some other kind of cultural Marxism anymore than male chauvinism could overcome feminism. White supremacy will not answer the challenge of multicultural globalism. We will not defeat the woke left by creating a woke right. Bottom line: what works for the left will not work for the right. Becoming the mirror image of the left to defeat left is actually not a winning strategy – but this is sadly what many, especially young men, on the right are doing right now.
To put this another way, even when white people are being attacked for their whiteness, white identity politics will be of very limited value, and will likely backfire. This is especially true if – as I suspect – the attack on whiteness is really just a proxy war for the left’s attack on the Christian civilization of the past that they see as the creation of white males.
In terms of electoral politics, the political battle of the moment should not be between Americans of different races or classes, but between the common citizens and the political elites who are trying to enslave them and displace them. The left would love for the right to play the game of white identity politics because it’s just one more way of pitting Americans against each other, instead of pitting the citizens of all colors against their true enemy. Rightwing identity politics will be easy for the left to defeat, so it’s more than a bit surprising to see so many young men obsessed with winning embrace it. If you are more concerned about what’s good for whites than what’s good for America as a whole, you’ve already lost (and this is to say nothing of even higher considerations, such as what is best for the church).
There are definitely strategies of cultural and political resistance available to Christians that do not depend on racial identity. Many of the things we should want are actually good for all Americans. The borderless south doesn’t just hurt whites, it hurts blacks. Whites might be the target of the policy, but arguably, blacks are damaged more. The same could be said DEI initiatives versus meritocracy. Diversity hires, affirmative action, etc., just reinforce the soft bigotry of low expectations. A proper meritocracy is good for all Americans, not just whites, because it raises the bar and brings out everyone’s best. Meritocracy produces a culture of high social trust and vocational excellence. Racial discrimination against whites is just as illegal as against other racial groups under American law, and so fighting back in the courts is a valid option. All Americans would be served well by election integrity, including voter ID laws which are very common in other modernized nations. Trustworthy elections are another key to building social trust. Everyone benefits from competent policing. While police corruption is a problem that should be dealt with when it arises, the narrative that all white cops operate with a strong racial bias is simply not supported by the facts. Defunding police actually hurts minorities even more than whites. Critical race theory and wealth redistribution programs just stir racial hate and class warfare, which is bad for all Americans. An economy that provides opportunity to all is wonderful; a government program that aims at equal outcomes destroys liberty and prosperity. And so on. If we are going to have a coherent country, we have to find ways to get along and so policies that stoke division are bad for everyone. The rule of law, policies that encourage family formation and discourage divorce, educational freedom/school choice, etc., are objectively good for all Americans, not just white Americans. And on and on it could go. If these kinds of policy proposals fail to garner support, the only conclusion we can come to is that America is under the judgment of God. And if God is determined to judge America, the only way out is widespread repentance. We certainly cannot stop God’s judgment through political action.
7. As Christians, we must affirm that racial reconciliation is internal to the gospel (Eph. 2:11ff). The gospel is a gospel for the nations. The gospel is for all peoples, tribes, and languages. In Galatians 2, Paul had to correct Peter for walking contrary to the gospel when he withdrew from Eucharistic table fellowship with Gentile believers. A gospel that segregates believers is not the true gospel. The church is the family of Abraham, drawing from every family and nation to form a new family and nation that transcends all earthly loyalties. The church is, as the creed puts it, catholic, meaning “universal.”
Thus, while the gospel does not negate our natural affections, it does transform and enlarge them. Natural preferences are not always trustworthy because nature is fallen and we are sinners. Natural preferences have to be checked against the Word of God.
The point is not that we can jump from Galatians 2 to a defense of a borderless nation – that move is illegitimate for reasons given above, namely the fact that nations do have integrity in God’s plan. It’s not even possible to jump from Galatians 2 to the necessity of open borders for Christian immigrants. There are other considerations. But a text like Galatians 2 can help us keep the race issue in proper perspective.
8. Another aspect of the ordo amoris discussion is found in in the “especially” commands of Scripture. Consider what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5: “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I have a greater obligation to family members than non-family members, and this remains true even if I don’t like (or don’t prefer) to be with those family members. Even if I’d rather help a friend than my children or parents, my obligation tilts towards family in normal circumstances. There is no way to “corban” yourself out of these obligations without trampling the law of Gid underfoot as the Pharisees did.
Similarly, Paul writes to the Galatians, “While we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” In other words, all other things being equal, I have a greater obligation to Christians than non-Christians. My ability to do good should an ecclesiocentric focus.
These passages are not so much prioritizing preferences, as they are prioritizing obligations: again, the closer someone is to us, whether familially, spiritually, or geographically, the greater our obligation is going to be to them. The more distant they are in those ways, the less obligation we have to them.
But how do we order these often obligations that sometimes seem to be in conflict with one another? The reality is that we are finite creatures, and therefore we have finite obligations. It is not a sin to be finite. Not even Jesus helped everyone who was in need on planet earth during his ministry. In fact, Jesus clearly operated out of a cascading set of obligations. Jesus focused on his own family members, those in his circle of friends (who became his disciples/apostles), and of course, the nation of Israel, his kinsmen after the flesh. He only reluctantly helped non-Jews on a few occasions – and yes, there are redemptive-historical considerations behind this, but Jesus was also showing us how ordered loves and obligations work.
We must also recognize that sometimes the ordo amoris can call us away from natural preferences. The Christian life is not merely a natural life, governed by natural preferences; it is a Spiritual life, animated by the love of the Spirit. Think of Paul, taking the gospel to those he would naturally despise, the Gentiles, and then working to incorporate Jewish and Gentiles believers (natural enemies) into a shared church life. We cannot order our affections strictly according to natural preferences because we are not merely natural men (1 Cor. 2). As Spiritual men, we must also have a Spiritual affection for many who are (or were) enemies, and who we would not necessarily prefer to be with, but who have become members of our true family through faith in Christ.
Even non-Christians often prefer and care for their own; Christians are called above and beyond those natural loves to a higher way of life.
But there are still some complexities here. Even given the reality of the Christian’s Spiritual connection to all other believers, we are still bounded creatures who must respect and honor the variety of relationships in which God has placed us. My Spiritual connection to Christians in China might lead me to pray for them but my limitations as a creature generally keep me from being able to help them in concrete ways. Meanwhile, my non-Christian neighbor next door has a flat tire and if I love my neighbor, I will help him change it because he is proximate to me. While it is hard to give a formula that captures the dynamics of my obligations, usually sanctified common sense will get me close to the mark. We are called to do things that are within reach and we are not called to do the impossible.
Paul provides us with a good model of natural and Spiritual affection operating side by side in the life of a believer: The same Paul who poured his life out in ministry to the Gentiles in order to bring them into the kingdom of God was also willing to be personally accursed if would mean salvation for his kinsmen (Romans 9:1ff). The same Paul who focused on the priority of the heavenly kingdom appreciated his citizenship in the Roman Empire, took advantage of the rights it afforded him, and made it his life’s ambition to preach the gospel not only to lesser magistrates in Rome, but to Caesar himself. In Paul’s writings, he easily slides back and forth between calling on believers to fulfill natural obligations to family members as well as Spiritual obligations to the church family. And so on.
9. Nations do not need to feel guilty for wanting to preserve and protect themselves. We should reject the manipulative guilt, e.g., charges of racism, that the left throws against those who want to restrain immigration for the good of the nation. Living in America is not a universal human right. If America is a lifeboat of freedom and prosperity, even the best lifeboat cannot take on too many people without starting to sink, and that’s the risk we run if we do not stop the unrestricted flow across the border.
Again, Scripture and nature both affirm the goodness of loving one’s people and place. Love for your own nation is, in a very real sense, just an extension of the love you have for your own family. The word “nation” is related to the word nativity because typically one’s nation is the land of one’s birth. Similarly, the word “patriotism” is related to word “patriarch,” and basically means “love for the fatherland.”
The same Scriptures affirm the goodness of love for one’s kinsmen also teach that natural affections must sometimes be sacrificed for the sake of something greater, namely, following Jesus and being loyal to his church (eg, Matt. 10:36-39 ; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 14:26; etc.). Natural affections are good, but if not kept in proper order, can become an idolatrous rival to Christ.
One problem with saying, “I should prefer my people to other groups,” is that each one of us belongs to several people groups. My people groups include:
– my nuclear family
– my extended family
– my circle of friends
– my nation/ethnicity
– my region (the South) and state (Alabama)
– my city, town, neighborhood, and street
– my cultural heritage, Western civilization
– my local church
– my denomination
– my theological tradition
– the church catholic
– those who share my skin color
– those who went to the same schools
– those who cheer for the same sports teams
– those who like the same brands
– etc.
The real question is how to organize my loves and loyalties to each of these groups to which I belong. Some of these “in groups” make a strong claim on my love and loyalty than others. There are contexts in which Scripture not only permits, but requires, an “in group” preference.
When it comes to friendship, preference is the main factor. When it comes to marriage, besides marrying in the Lord, Christians can exercise preference. But many other relationships are not chosen; they are part of the “givenness” of life in God’s providence. And those unchosen relationships carry with them obligations.
Think of the Apostle Paul. He belonged to the Roman Empire as a citizen; he belonged to the nation of Israel, and within that, the tribe of Benjamin and the school of the Pharisees; and he was a Christian who belonged to the church. From Paul’s writings, we can piece together how he structured his loyalties to these various groups. In Paul’s own life, he obviously preferred the Jew/Gentile Christian churches over all other groups. And yet his affection for his own people, even though they persecuted him, was so strong, he was willing to be cursed if it would bring the Jews salvation.
If Paul was willing to go to hell for his ethnic brethren, I can certainly have some measure of love for my nation and its citizens. Indeed, I am obligated to seek the good of my nation, which often will often mean limiting or restricting immigration, even of fellow Christians, into my nation. Patriotism is generally a virtue in ordinary circumstances.
At the same time, I realize my own nation has become largely anti-Christian and, frankly, that weakens my loyalty to her. Think of how Calvin spoke of his native France after fleeing to Geneva:
Even though I regard my country with as much natural affection as becomes me, as things now stand, I do not much regret being excluded. Rather, I embrace the common cause of all believers, that of Christ himself – a cause completely torn and trampled in your realm today, lying as it were utterly forlorn.
If my nation began persecuting my fellow believers – if she became a beast in the imagery of Scripture – I would have to turn against her because I have a higher loyalty to the church.
The same would be true in the case of the family. If a child of mine apostatized, I would have to put my loyalty to Christ and his church above loyalty to my own flesh and blood, and join with the elders in excommunicating my own child. My child would still be my child, so some obligations would remain, but it would definitely alter the way we relate. Disinheritance of a child is a perfectly appropriate response if a child apostatizes. I have no obligation to enable Spiritual rebellion even on the part of a close family member. In that sense, water (baptismal water) is thicker than blood.
What about skin color? As a white man, am I supposed to be loyal to white in an unconditional way? To be frank, skin color simply does not rank anywhere in the biblical hierarchy of loyalties. Skin color does not correlate to much of anything in Scripture or in the modern world. I am Spiritually connected to many people who do not share skin color and I am Spiritually at war with many people who do share my own skin color. But Scripture pays almost no attention to skin color. To wit: Clarence Thomas is much more a part of my “in group” than Joe Biden, even though I share skin color with the latter and not the former. I prefer Thomas Sowell to Hilary Clinton. And so on. Many people who share my skin color do not share my nation, ethnicity, language, culture, or faith.
This is why I have raised a question about the wisdom or effectiveness of things like “white boy summer.” Why prioritize, prefer, and promote skin color in this way? What is it accomplishing (besides funny memes)? Why not “American boy summer,” emphasizing nationality and ethnicity? Why not “Christian boy summer,” emphasizing shared faith and loyalty to the church? In all the various “identities” I have, skin color does carry nearly the same weight as many other things.
Those who want to emphasize our obligation to “prefer our own” should spell out what they mean by “their own” in each context. Is it skin color or race? Nationality or ethnicity? Spiritual kinship by faith and church membership? I cannot evaluate what you are saying until I know which “in group” you have in mind when you talk about preferences. Ambiguity creates unnecessary division and obscures places where there might be more agreement than once thought.
There is no simple way to rank my or loves in a timeless or abstract way because there are many factors to consider. There is no easy “catch all” formula. But the basic principles should be clear.
10. Finally, we should ask how all this applies to the discussion of contemporary American immigration policy. Start with this reality: As an American, I have a greater obligation to be concerned about the temporal welfare of the citizens of Springfield, Ohio and Sylacauga, Alabama than I do non-Americans. The best way for me to be a good Samaritan to many of my fellow Americans is to try to put an end to the foreign invasion at our southern border – an invasion which hurts the economic prospects and way of life of my fellow Americans, especially of lower and middle-class Americans, including minorities. That does not make me completely indifferent to the well-being of people in other nations, but I do have a lesser duty to them.
If we only think in terms of preference (instead of obligation), someone might argue that they prefer the well-being of non-Americans over Americans, for whatever reason. But I don’t think it’s just a matter of preference — Americans have some kind of obligation to other Americans. As Christians, we cannot claim to want to disciple our nation if we are simultaneously working for her destruction via what amounts to massive illegal immigration. If I prioritize the well-being of non-citizens over fellow citizens, that’s actually a denial of my obligations to my own people. It might sound pious to prefer immigrants to fellow citizens of our country, but it’s actually immoral because we have a higher duty to our own nation than to anyone else’s. We have a duty to care for and protect citizens of our own nation that we do not have to the citizens of other nations.
It is technically true that when immigrants come to America we have new evangelistic opportunities but this does not mean open immigration fits in with an ecclesiocentric vision. American Christians rightfully take a special interest in what is best for the church in America, and it is obvious that unrestricted immigration is harmful to many of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who are American citizens.
When Israel was carried off in exile they had new evangelistic opportunities, of course. And if immigrants are dropped on our doorstep, whether we think it was a good idea or not, we should love them and speak truth to them. Whatever situation we find ourselves in, in terms of God’s providence, we should make the most of it, evangelistically and otherwise.
But do not be fooled: in Scripture, when a nation is invaded by other people groups who speak different languages, it is a judgment of God. When citizens hear foreign tongues being spoken in their own land, it is a sign of God’s hammer falling on a people, a sign that a crisis point has arrived (Deuteronomy 28:49; Isaiah 29:11).
What happened at Pentecost in 30 AD in Acts 2 does not change this fact; indeed, it reinforces this fact. At Pentecost, the gospel was spoken in a multitude of languages in Israel, and that was a sign that Gentile believers were being grafted in to the covenant family of God. But it was also a sign of judgment on that generation of Israelites, and within 40 years their nation was utterly demolished, their city wrecked, and their temple destroyed, just as Jesus had declared it would be (cf. Matthew 24:1-34).
Immigration is not a “gospel issue,” per se, in that the gospel does not dictate any particular stance a nation or citizen must take towards border security.
The gospel announces that all nations and people groups can be reconciled to one another in Christ, so the strife, enmity, and racial vainglory that has often characterized the world can be overcome and eradicated. The church has done this historically, reconciling people in the Roman Empire in ways previously unthinkable. The gospel created Western Civilization, largely by transforming and uniting various disparate people groups in Europe that hated one another and held one another to be subhuman barbarians. The gospel allowed each people group of ethnicity within Western civilization to develop a gospel-saturated culture in its own way, with a wide variety of architectural, musical, and culinary expressions. But the nations within Western civilization were recognizably Christian and often enjoyed peace as the fruit of their faith.
The gospel transforms nations but does not eradicate natural and providential allegiances to one’s people and place. The gospel does not negate “storge” but elevates and purifies our natural affections.
Proper immigration policy will always be a matter of prudence for any given nation, given the purpose of civil government, which is is to serve the interests of its citizens in accordance with the justice of God. The Torah, of course provides wisdom in this area as it does in so many other areas of life. For example, Torah teaches the importance of assimilation – someone who immigrates to another nation must be prepared to give up certain aspects of their own heritage in order to fit into their new nation (eg, immigrants in ancient Israel would not have been permitted to proselytize for their false gods). Torah teaches that some immigrants might need to be denied citizenship for generations so that assimilation can fully happen, especially if the immigrant came from an ethnic group less compatible with his new nation. Nothing in Torah suggests a nation should be willing to have its own way of life, customs, and identity obliterated by immigration; indeed Torah teaches that we should honor mother, father, and other ancestors.
Torah would also teach us to love immigrants who become neighbors but also gives nation’s to act in prudent ways with regard to how they handle the issue of immigration. There is nothing charitable about a nation allowing so many immigrants in that it wrecks its own citizens lives, any more than a family is showing charity by trying to take in so many foster children the natural children are neglected. There is nothing unkind in insisting that immigrants obey a nation’s laws, including laws pertaining to the process of immigration and citizenship. This is also perfectly reasonable, loving, and prudent. There is nothing unloving or unrighteous in treating those who break immigration laws as criminals.
—
More on immigration, from 2024:
Yes, the Bible does have quite a bit to say about immigrants and how to treat them.
It also has a lot to say about nations, borders, walls, etc.
Yes, the Bible has a lot to say about the sin of ethnic and racial arrogance.
It also has a lot to say about honoring your fathers and their good traditions, having children and building a household, preserving your people group, loving your people and place, etc.
Yes, the Bible is clear we should love our neighbor, even if he is of a different ethnicity or race.
The Bible is also clear some cultures are superior to others.
Yes, the Bible teaches all nations should be discipled and that means all nations will come to have some fundamental things in common.
The Bible also teaches nations and ethnic identities are a permanent aspect of our humanity, and various people groups will bring their peculiar treasures into Christ’s kingdom.
—
There could be no civilization at all if each generation rejects everything from their fathers and mothers.
Civilization is a trans-generational project.
—
A nation’s civil government has the authority to control immigration. It should do so considering the best interests of its citizenry, the cultural and religious background of those who want to immigrate (a Christian nation would obviously prioritize Christian immigrants), the ability and willingness of immigrants to assimilate to the host culture, and their impact on the economy, social services, educational and medical institutions, and so on.
—
My tweet from 5/19/24 on the Mahler/White debate:
I haven’t watched much of the debate (and probably won’t), but it seems what the debate actually proved is that anarcho-tyranny and the welfare state have produced the intended results.
Obviously, White won on the merits of the case. If God can turn stones into sons of Abraham, he can sanctify people of any race to whatever degree he chooses. But there is a bit more here to explore.
To attribute the sins of a particular racial group solely to genetics is wrongheaded. For example, the black illegitimacy rate in America today very high. But if you go back a few generations in history, the black illegitimacy rate was much lower *then* than the white illegitimacy rate is *now.* In other words, black promiscuity and fatherlessness today is not just a product of genetics; it is a response to particularly perverse incentive structure (imposed on them mainly by white progressives).
Even when we characterize particular racial sins, we must recognize that races are simply not static. Whites were not always the overly docile, low T, easily deceived, self-loathing people they are today. In many ways, it’s hard to believe that whites in America today are genetically related to the people who discovered and settled this continent, claimed victory in two world wars, and won the space race. Our resemblance to our ancestors is quite vague in those respects. Likewise, during England’s Victorian era, it might have been hard to fathom how that prim and proper people could be genetically related to those who, a couple millennia earlier, worshipped rocks, ran into battle naked, and were accused of being too stupid to even serve as slaves. Other racial and ethnic groups have, and no doubt will, undergo similar transformations and deformations over the course of history.
1/2
Finally, I want to mention something I’ll write about more extensively later. The claim is made by some Neo-Nazis that “Christians have always been racists…we just believe what everyone before 1960 believed.”
This is utterly false. First, it’s anachronistic. Views of what the races are have not been static over history. Pre-18th century people did not have a biological conception of race the same way we do. Darwin, in particular, changed the way races were viewed, and the rise of 19th century (and later) racism owes a great deal to Darwinian evolution. The full title of Darwin’s work was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The racialist implications bound up in his theory were inescapable – but also quite novel. It was common for earlier generations to think that skin color was a function of latitude, not genetics. (See book Not Stolen by Jeff Finn Paul for historical details on this point.) There is no historical evidence that racial bigotry was built into the Christian ethic or served as an article of faith amongst pre-modern believers.
When the first European colonists arrived in North America, many of them (especially the Spanish but also some English) intermarried with the Indians with hardly any controversy. Obviously they knew that a believer should marry only in the Lord, but they evangelized the Indians, and once some converted, interracial marriages became almost inevitable. Think of John Rolfe.
When I hear the claim that everyone before 1960 was a racialist, I wonder what churches these people attend. If they do go to church, what prayers do they use? What hymns do they sing? If they are part of a church that respects tradition and incorporates historical hymnody and other liturgical forms, they should know better than to think pre-1960 Christians were racial bigots. There are many pre-1960 hymns that celebrate God’s mercy to all nations. But I know of no hymns or prayer forms that tout white supremacy, or the curse of Ham as perpetual, or any other kind of racialist doctrine as an article of Christian faith. If someone can produce evidence of racial bigotry in historic Christian hymnody, I’d like to see it. What I see is a lot of the opposite of that. Take the 19th century hymn, “Hail to the Lord’s Anointed” as an example. Its lyrics include these verses:
Kings shall fall down before Him,
And gold and incense bring;
All nations shall adore Him,
His praise all people sing;
For He shall have dominion
O’er river, sea, and shore,
Far as the eagle’s pinion,
Or dove’s light wing can soar.
Arabia’s desert ranger
to Him shall bow the knee;
The Ethiopian stranger
His glory come to see;
With offerings of devotion
ships from the isles shall meet,
To pour the wealth of oceans
in tribute at His feet.
There is nothing that suggests the Arab or the Ethiopian is incapable of salvation or sanctification. No, these people groups will be included with others in bringing their treasure into the kingdom. These nations will be discipled and transformed.
2/2
—-
Joe Rigney’s book “The Sin of Empathy” has a good section on “the progressive gaze.” Obviously, this is just a particular species of the fear of man. Not surprisingly, it’s led to all kinds of mischief in the church.
The progressive gaze is undoubtedly part of Tim Keller’s legacy. Keller explicitly and intentionally preached under the progressive gaze. His whole philosophy of ministry was developed around the progressive gaze. His inability/unwillingness to address certain issues, like abortion and homosexuality, were very much due to the progressive gaze. He had no problem offending Christian fundamentalists; in fact, he would sometimes do so intentionally (perhaps to gain street cred with the progressives he imagined to be his audience). But he would tap dance around texts and nuance things to death to minimize offense to progressives. As his sermons gained popularity, more and more evangelical and Reformed pastors adopted the same approach, sensibilities, and sensitivities in their preaching. Of course, as Rigney shows, the result of accommodating, rather then confronting, progressivism during the neutral world era was negative world. The attempt to win them with winsomeness and watered down truth claims failed. Indeed, it backfired.
I explained more here:
—
The last two chapters of Meg Basham ‘s book Shepherds for Sale show why pastors need to speak with clarity, forcefulness, and frequency to the controversial biblical teachings of the day.
This is true for pastors even in heavily blue areas.
Holding back the truth to be “missional” simply doesn’t work.
The pulpit needs to be a place of direct, courageous proclamation of the whole counsel of God.
1/3
Kristin Powers came to resent Tim Keller because he tried to bait and switch his listeners.
He was not upfront about the church’s convictions on issues like abortion and homosexuality.
Keller’s third-wayism led him to soft-peddle controversial teachings.
His winsome-driven attempt to be above the fray for the sake of mission backfired.
It would have been better for her to know the true cost of discipleship upfront.
But Keller did not lay it all out for her so Powers felt misled and betrayed when she finally discovered them.
2/3
Contrast that with Basham ‘s own beautiful testimony in the closing chapter.
What broke her out of her spiritual enslavement to drug and alcohol abuse?
Two things:
1. Reading the plain spoken words of a hermit who was clear about Lancelot’s sin of lust.
2. Reading the hard edged, pull-no-punches call to repentance from John MacArthur’s book Vanishing Conscience.
That’s what broke her free – true words, plainly spoken, with nothing held back for the sake of avoiding offense
Preachers, take note
“Hard truths make for soft hearts.”
3/3
—
More older tweets:
Generally speaking, a nation is a particular people group that shares common borders, the common government, a common language, and at least to some degree a common culture. It is possible to have a particular people group/ethnicity that does not have its own geopolitical space. But that would not be the norm. Nations are typically defined by borders.
The word “nation” is related to the word “natal,” and so obviously nations grew out of families, eg, to share nationhood was to share ancestors. But just as families find spouses for their children from other families (unless they are incestuous), so nations almost always have some degree of permeability to outsiders. And even nations that are not very permeable still tend to develop various subcultures within the nation. The 12 tribes of old covenant Israel certainly developed their own subcultures within the broader culture of the nation of Israel. All of us who share an American ethnicity would obviously recognize a wide variety of subcultures within the broader American culture, eg, Southerners, Yankees, and Westerners have considerable differences.
—
Nations can be mixed racially to a degree, provided immigrants assimilate to the language and culture of the host people group.
People speaking foreign languages en masse in your nation is a sign of divine judgment.
—
The needle we need to thread is not that hard.
Reject the heresy of globalism. Reject racial and ethnic malice.
That’s it. That’s all we need to do.
—
The Christian goal is not “religious freedom” (whatever that is). The Christian goal is a discipled nation.
To unpack this further:
True religious liberty must be an ordered liberty — a discipled liberty. Religious liberty is not a blank check to do what you want in the name of religion.
In a discipled nation, the framework for liberty, religious or otherwise, is provided by the Christian faith. The religiously neutral version of religious liberty that so many subscribe to is unworkable and contradictory. For example, one religious group is polygamous, another religious group has the conviction that polygamy should be outlawed. They cannot both have freedom. Molech worshippers want to sacrifice babies. Christians say that is murder and should be outlawed. They cannot both be free in the same way. Etc.
The reality is that in any society some particular religion will have hegemony. True neutrality is impossible. The state will inevitably favor one religion over others.
I fear the myth of religious liberty (as commonly held) has undercut Christians from advocating for a public morality that would serve the common good and conform the nation to God’s will for social ethics.
My understanding of liberty is much closer to the original intent of 1A (which was compatible with established churches at the state level, blasphemy laws, anti-sodomy laws, etc.). The original meaning of “religious liberty” in America would seem quite illiberal to most people today.
—
“Give me Scotland, or I die.”
We should think and pray like John Knox. Knox prayed for the Lord to give him Scotland, not to give him whites. He thought biblically, in terms of ethnicity/nationality, not race. He thought of “my people” in terms of Scotland. Nations, unlike races, are covenantal entities and must factor into the ordo amoris as such. The mission of the church is structured and organized in terms of nations in the Great Commission. National consciousness > race consciousness.
—
The church had already stamped out European slavery in the Middle Ages before it got reintroduced in the Americas with the African slave trade. Anti-miscegenation laws were not common in Christendom until the 18th century and even then only existed in a limited geographic locale. They are not part of the Christian tradition as such. They were a short-lived novelty.
But someone will say, “Of course there were no miscenegation laws before the 1700s. The races had very little interaction with each other. It’d be like saying there were no rules for cell phones in school before 2010.”
First, the races certainly had interaction prior to the exploring/settling of the Americas. But, second, if it was minimal compared to what came later, then we should all recognize that whatever 17th-19th century Christian’s believed about race was novel, and not part of the Christian tradition, and certainly shouldn’t be normative today – no more than the first cellphone rules should be considered the norm for all of time. If racial interaction on a wide scale is a new historical development, we have to be open to the possibility of learning and growing and cannot be fixed on 18th or 19th century Southern Presbyterian views as the norm. if the kind of racial interaction experienced in America was novel, there was no tradition for the Christians of that era to fall back on. It would be understandable if they got some things wrong, and it would be foolish for us to think their views/practices should be the norm for the church going forward.
—
In my circles, none of us are multiculturalists or cultural egalitarians. Wilson, myself, and others are still happy to cite Rushdoony, Dabney, etc., when it’s fitting. I don’t subscribe to their infallibility but I do appreciate them. The question is not, “Would Dabney be excommunicated if he were in the church today?,” but, “Would Dabney make the same errors if he were in the church today?” I think Wilson has done a fair job evaluating Dabney.
A Christian, conservative political agenda can be accomplished without racial identity politics (the successes of the Trump administration are an excellent test case for this).
Racial identity politics from the right, including making a big issue of interracial marriage, is bound to lose. If some men want to become martyrs for racial identity politics, that’s their choice. I’d rather win as a Christian – and I do think significant victories are possible if Christians will be wise and vigilant about it. The alt right, or Neo-Nazis, or whatever they should be called, are fools and a distraction from the task at hand.
—
Zionism – aka Jewish identity politics – has been successful because it’s had supporters from the theologically confused dispensational right *and* from the elitist left. Of course, Reformed Christians have never been as susceptible to theological arguments that we owe the modern nation-state of Israel some kind of unqualified support. MAGA is rightly questioning this unconditional support from the perspective of what serves America’s interests. It’ll be interesting to see if anything actually charges.
—
I don’t think the issue is “race realism” – I have no objection to acknowledging race is real. I think the issue is the role we want race to play in our politics relative to other factors. What is commonly called “identity politics,” whether of the feminist, Jewish, or racial variety, is a huge part of the problem. There is a better way forward for Christians.
—
The Trump administration is far from perfect, but they are doing exactly what I’m talking about. Trump’s team never uses racial framing for anything. But they have secured the border, eviscerated DEI, etc.
Obviously it will take multiple conservative presidencies to fix all that has gone wrong under progressivism. That’s why it’s important to not screw up the opportunity we have right now, which is exactly what the alt right (or whatever you want to call it) is doing.
—
What do we I think of Dabney? I think he was brilliant. Wilson gives a fair assessment in Black and Tan.
I cite an instance where I agree with Dabney here: http://trinity-pres.net/essays/_published_Reformed_Doctrine_Justification_By_Works.pdf. And here: https://tpcpastorspage.com/2022/10/21/find-a-spouse-build-a-house-conference-follow-up/. Dabney was amazingly insightful about many things. At the same time, I have disagreements with Dabney on a number of things, including musical instruments in worship, the propriety of having a church calendar, the status of covenant children, and, yes, his racial theology. I agree with him on some things, disagree with him on others, and honor him accordingly.
—
It’s important to recognize LBJ’s welfare state did its damage by design. The destruction of the black family was intentional. Creating a culture of dependency was intentional.
—
1. The racial intermixing that took place in the Americas beginning in the 17th century was a new, unprecedented situation. The slave trade was abominable, and many Christians opposed it. The interracial society it produced created a set of issues that had not been dealt with at that scale in history.
2. When any group of people are confronted with a novel situation, in which there is no precedent or tradition to fall back on, inevitably mistakes will be made.
3. This means the views of race seen in many Christians from the 17th century on are hardly the norm for the church and certainly cannot be thought of as the church’s mature views on the subject since we would expect the people of God to grow in their understanding in this area as we have in other areas.
4. This means errant views held by Christians in that time period should not be judged as harshly as those who hold similar views today, e.g., Dabney is not as culpable for his racist views as people are today because the racial situation he confronted was still relatively new. We have no such excuse at this point.
—
Here are a mix of posts on meritocracy from X, mostly from October ’24 and January ’25:
Lots of talk about “colorblind meritocracy” on the right at the moment, much of it critical. Is this the best time to countersignal the incoming administration, right as Trump is doing away with DEI?
For the record, I think the way most people understand “meritocracy” (including Trump) would allow employers to hire whoever they want. Meritocracy doesn’t require managerial credentialing (at least not in every case), does not rule out nepotism (eg, a family business keeping hires in the family), would not keep a Christian business owner from prioritizing the hiring of other Christians, etc.
In our current context, it seems to me that “meritocracy” functions to counteract affirmative action, racial quotas, etc. and emphasize the importance of competency over “diversity.” That seems to be how the Trump administration is using it.
In some areas, meritocratic credentials does seem necessary, eg, I don’t want the hospital CEO to hire his brother-in-law as a surgeon if he has no credentials. But in general, I think Trump’s move towards meritocracy is a move towards respecting owenership and freedom – the government is not going to mandate who you hire if you are a business owner or corporation.
Meritocracy is at root anti-egalitarian and illiberal. A meritocratic society will obviously have unequal outcomes. Trump is affirming that’s he’s ok with that, as he should be.
thecollegefix.com/trump-promises…
Here’s the framework I think we’re seeing play out:
DEI = hire the minority candidate the government forces on you
Meritocracy = hire who you want (eg, whoever you think is most qualified or best fit in your judgment)
I was asked if I am ok with backs being left out of some fields, etc. My response:
I’m ok with hardly any white starting defensive backs in the NFL over the last two decades, so yeah, I can live with the best rising to the top in every field. It’ll also mean more Asian surgeons, engineers, etc., and I’m good with that too. Meritocracy means meritocracy. Let the chips fall.
In a free society, blacks could form their own medical schools and so forth if they desire. I’d have no problem with that either. Free association and all that.
A free society will be its own best defense. A DEI society really hurts everyone. A society in which we freely compete is a society of excellence. A DEI society is a mediocre society. To fear competition is effeminate.
You cannot defeat racial identity politics with more racial identity politics. All racial identity politics can do is produce the nihilism of Nietzsche’s will to power. It will devolve into the all the worst features of democracy that our founding fathers warned us about, including the tyranny of mob rule. Racial identity politics is the politics of anger and resentment; it cannot produce the righteousness of God.
America has really never had a (color blind, free association) meritocracy. We basically went from Jim Crow segregation to affirmative action and DEI.
Employers should be able to hire whom they wish to hire. The “colorblind meritocracy” is a step on the way there, and could even be said to include it if merit (in the sense of “worth”) is defined broadly enough. All things being equal, Christians will make better workers in the long run. (See chapter 7 of Leithart’s The Kingdom and the Power.)
Here’s a string of posts where I tried to summarize the issues:
I realize there are many issues surrounding “meritocracy.” There is the danger of turning people into nothing more than units of economic productivity, measuring everything in terms of money and efficiency; the danger of ignoring a person’s virtue, beliefs, and worldview in evaluating their fitness for a position; the danger of cutting off people from ties of tradition and family by making competency the only thing that matters; etc. “Meritocracy” is kind of a clumsy category to use; a blunt instrument when a more refined one would actually be better. But the Trump administration is invoking the meritocracy in its rejection of the DEI model so it’s important for us to understand it and think it through. Just this week, new Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was touting the recovery of a “colorblind meritocracy” as the key to bringing back the lethality and effectiveness of the American military. So: What should we think about meritocracy? What is a meritocratic order?
First, it should be acknowledged that if the choice is between DEI and meritocracy, we should definitely go with the latter because at least it values competency over vague notions like “diversity” and “equality.” In a DEI context, diversity is not actually a strength but a weakness. Diversity for the sake of diversity makes us less strong, less competent, less effective.
Second, in some areas of modern life, traditionalist standards that grounded authority or legitimacy in heredity simply cannot be invoked, and meritocracy is an absolute necessity. In these areas of life, rejecting meritocracy means a return to the Stone Age. Do you want a man piloting your next airplane flight simply because his father was a pilot, totally apart from any training and credentialing he might personally have? Do you want your surgeon chosen because he happened to grow up near where you live and shares your religious beliefs, or because he has been rigorously educated, vetted against objective standards, and passed through appropriate testing? Do you want your bridge designed by a man who was chosen because of his family ties or his proven skill and excellence an engineer? These questions answer themselves. Meritocracy is simply built into modern life. In reality, merit – in the sense of width or excellence – has always mattered, but in a modernized, technological economy it takes on a new level of importance. We need to choose quality over diversity. We need to choose skill over equity. We need to value merit or life as we know it will grind to a halt.
Third, meritocracy has created far greater wealth, freedom, and social mobility than have ever existed before. However, these gains have also brought trade offs. In a meritocratic society, there will always be pressure to become a workaholic, that is, for work to consume other important aspects of life. Meritocracy began to offset and undermine aristocracy especially with the rise of industry and technology where simply belonging to a higher social class could not be a proxy for competency. Thus, it’s easy to blame meritocracy for things like family breakdown and generational divides, since fathers would no longer be training their sons to do the same work they had done. Meritocracy would seem to undermine the family by replacing nepotism with competency (the very fact that “nepotism” is generally viewed as a negative word indicates the problem). It’s easy to tie meritocracy to feminism, eg, why should the sex of the job candidate matter if all we care about is competency? It’s easy to link meritocracy to globalism and the globalist economy, eg, if the best workers come from other countries, shouldn’t we import them to here or offshore our business to over there? I would agree that in each of these cases, there are valid concerns and more traditionalist answers to these questions should be incorporated into our view of meritocracy. Merit should not be separated from other more natural and traditional considerations, such as family and faith. Perhaps we need a chastened or constrained meritocracy that can combine the best features of the old world order with those of the new. But even then, merit will have to be part of the system. There is no alternative to it if we don’t want society to collapse.
Fourth, the attack on meritocracy is part of our culture’s war on masculinity. Meritocracy tends to emphasize masculine interests and proclivities – especially competence and competition. Men tend to value excellence over inclusivity. Men socially relate through hierarchy. Men naturally create merit-based systems. Yes, the meritocracy needs to be qualified and constrained in various ways as noted above. But we must have it. The meritocracy is masculine. The meritocracy is patriarchal. The meritocracy is the only way to bring out the best, especially the best in our men, and we sorely need that right now.
So while acknowledging the limitations of a meritocratic order, including some of the abuses it produced before the rise of wokeness and DEI, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let’s find the best way to properly order our society in a way that combines merit’s emphasis on competency and skill with respect for order and nature – the nature of men and women, the nature of family life, and the nature of Christian faith and tradition.
TPC Pastor's Page 