Christian Race Realism, part 5: Objections
6 August 2024
Having seen the reality of race proven from Scripture and nature, and illustrated from historic Christian thought, we now move on to address objections, which are manifold. We have labored to reduce them to eighteen. To help deal more succinctly, at times we will refer readers to places where a topic has been discussed at greater length, including our prior articles, and our recently published replies to Charles Johnson and to Douglas Wilson.
1. Race is not real, except as a social construct
A “social construct” is an artificial category that has reality by convention or societal agreement, and is useful for discussing issues, but has no basis in the reality of the thing it describes. There are various ways race could be called “real,” but this objection usually intends to deny that race has a biological reality, that it is rooted in genetics which are passed on in the course of ordinary generation. But the biological reality of race should be obvious. The ancestors of today’s whites, blacks, and Asians were isolated from each other over the course of many generations, so their genes naturally became isolated. This is a biological reality. They each have distinctive physical features and natural aptitudes that identify them and distinguish them from the others. These are biological realities. Yes, there are less strictly biological things that mark each race, like morality, in their distinctive vices and virtues. But we cannot grant that morality is not at all biological, as least as regards natural proclivities. On the objection that morality and biology have no connection, see article 3, under “Morality.” Finally, yes there are properly non-biological features that mark races too, like their native languages. But insofar as languages are strongly tied to the people that speak them natively, language still testifies to the reality of race, even if it is not a strict proof of its biological reality. On this topic again see article 3. As to the argument from peripheral cases and racial change, see objection 3 below.
2. Ethnicity is real, but not race
In common usage of terms, ethnicity is merely a subset of race. They partake of the same reality. See articles 1 and 3.
3. Race is real, but not permanent
We grant that certain features of races can change over time. Usually this happens slowly, and over the long-term. We leave it to God’s sovereign freedom that he can change a race more quickly, even miraculously in a moment. But miracles are not the rule of his providence, or of our duty, or of science. If such sudden change should come upon a race, we are committed to empirical honesty, and will adjust our understanding of that race accordingly. Moreover, changes limited to individual persons, families, or even nations, do not disturb the distinctions between races. And large-scale mixing of two races may create a third distinct, real race, but it does not remove the real distinction between the original two unmixed races. See the reply to Wilson.
4. Race is real, and permanent, but relatively unimportant
This argument has a generic form, “What does race matter? Better to be colorblind,” and a Christian form, “Don’t make race an idol. Grace, not race. Major on the majors. Be much in the main things.” We address especially the latter. As a warning about relative priority we receive it gladly. We made the same warning ourselves at the end of article 1. But this warning is inappropriate when used to ignore the question of the truth of an opinion. And when used to avoid discussing racial issues altogether, it ignores the subtlety of Satan, and closes our eyes to the present reality of his work to destroy even those “main things.”
This reality deserves a bit of time to explain. Consider a few analogous things, the first hypothetical. If Satan decided to stir up his servants to start teaching, “2+2=5,” and this error became so popular that it started creeping into the church, it would need to be addressed in some manner by the church. This would not mean a math fact is now a “main thing.” But if the church allows obvious facts to be overturned openly, reason itself will be overturned, and thus eventually all reasoning from Scripture also. Compare how the Westminster Confession (20.4) says things “contrary to the light of nature…may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.”
A second analogy is not hypothetical, that of feminism. We concede that anti-feminism is not the gospel. But a church that is not anti-feminist will eventually lose the gospel, as history proves. This example is more relevant than most admit: the churches in this age that are the most feminist, are also the most “anti-racist,” and the arguments for both errors have striking similarity, e.g. their abuse of Galatians 3:28 (see objection 12 below).
Consider a third analogy from warfare. In its confessions and catechisms the church has strongly fortified and manned the main doctrinal battlements, such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and justification by faith alone. And rightly so. But no surprise that Satan would therefore choose to attack the fortress from the rear. And no surprise that he would aid his ambush by convincing watchmen not to sound the alarm, and city elders not to send troops to the back gate, by saying, “This isn’t the main gate, it’s not worth stirring up such trouble.”
This analogy is not idle. Though race realism is not the gospel, Satan is actively using the denial of it to destroy the gospel. The anti-racist Great Replacement he has promulgated would be bad enough if it only opposed the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” But it is all the worse, and all the more directly a threat to the gospel, because those whom it aims to kill, white men, and among them especially white Anglo-Protestants, are those who have been by far the most responsible for the spread of the gospel. Nearly all the best theologians in nearly all of Christian history have been white, and in the best portions of that history, namely the Reformation and Post-Reformation, they were the whitest. The best Christian literature has been, and still is today, written and published by white authors. Modern global missions have been, and are today, largely accomplished by white missionaries, which is made possible not only by their unique spiritual heritage, but also by their unique temporal advantages. All should recognize that Christianity and civilization are inseparable, and that the Northwest European sons of Japheth are unique in all the world for their ability to promote both. Among all peoples of the earth, white men have possessed the height of blessings both spiritual and temporal, and they have been most diligent in their use of those blessings for others’ good, even and especially their eternal good. No wonder Satan wants to see them ruined. And the denial of race realism is a key to his accomplishment of that ruin.
The denial that race is real brings with it other serious problems. When a race has been convinced it has no particular existence, it naturally loses all incentive to be thankful for its particular blessings, or to serve God particularly according to them. Moreover, among whites, anti-race-realism teaches them to loathe themselves, not for their sins, but for their very nature, indeed for their historic virtues, which are slandered as great vices. This is a grievous sin against God’s law: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “Honor thy father and thy mother.” And though law is distinct from gospel, the gospel does require obedience to the law (John 14:15), and anti-race-realism undermines this obedience. Moreover, it militates against salvation, in that it turns sinners’ attention from their real sins, to fake sins invented by modern politicians. When churches make public statements “repenting” of past “racism,” they not only slander their fathers, but they also falsely soothe their people’s consciences, and thus greatly endanger their souls. For only real repentance from real sins is saving.
Finally we turn the charge back on the objectors. If race is so unimportant, why does the writing of race realists, who are relatively small in number, and have nearly zero power in both church and state, stir up such a firestorm of angry responses, especially from the church? We see the same ministers who say to race realists, “Stop majoring on the minors,” go on to pronounce solemn and weighty public condemnations in regard to those “minors.” In all honesty, we fear this objection is often not sincere. There are few people in the world or church who actually think racial issues are unimportant, even spiritually.
5. Races are real and distinct, but not superior and inferior
We return to the analogy of feminism, which could be described as a denial of “sex realism.” Some try a similar compromise against it, which they call “complementarianism,” saying that the sexes really differ, and that those differences make them “complementary,” while studiously avoiding any implication of the natural inferiority of the female sex, the “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7).
We should not make such compromises. Yes, races are real, and “complementary,” as various distinct but interdependent parts of the one body of mankind. But we do not thereby deny that some races are as the head, some as the feet, some more naturally fit for rule, some more naturally fit for submission. We cite the Westminster Larger Catechism’s recognition of superiors in gifts (q. 124), and the mutual duties of inferiors and superiors (qq. 125–130). We see no reason to deny that this can be applied to racial differences.
Some would retort, “We agree that wives should obey their husbands, but deny that blacks should obey whites.” But those statements are not properly parallel. Obedience properly presumes office, as in the former statement: “wives” and “husbands” are offices. But in the second statement, “blacks” and “whites” are not offices, but people, standing for whole races. For the first statement to be truly parallel to the second, it would have to say, “Women should obey men.” But we deny this statement, as it lacks proper distinctions. We would say rather, “The female sex is inferior to the male sex,” and by the proper parallel, “The black race is inferior to the white race.” This inferiority of sex or race, in concrete circumstances, is indeed commonly expressed in inferiority of office: as that of wives to their husbands, so that of black employees to their white employers, or in the past, of black slaves to their white masters, or black subjects to their white colonial rulers. But not always. We recognize that in other concrete circumstances (especially in our egalitarian age) inferiority of sex or race can be present together with superiority of office. For example, a white male employee may have a female or black boss. In both respects we affirm the fact of inferiority and superiority, and the duties that flow from it.
Another objection comes here, “But I have a highly virtuous, intelligent black friend, so it’s wrong to say the black race is inferior to the white race.” First, not knowing this black friend ourselves, it is reasonable to question whether the evaluation of his gifts is accurate. In our age of “affirmative action,” whites routinely exaggerate the gifts of non-whites. Even the left would warn us about the “tokenism” of elevating a minority just because he is a minority. But second, granting the assessment of this friend is true, it is no proof of total racial equality. As races are large populations, we can only speak of racial characteristics by aggregates and averages. There will always be individual exceptions, but these do not disprove sound generalizations. In fact the rarity of the exception is a sound proof the rule is true. A simple reply could be, “Thank the Lord for your friend’s gifts. But I have four dozen white friends more virtuous and intelligent than any of the hundreds of black people I have known. What does this prove?”
6. Even if races are inferior, we must show them kindness and compassion
We wholeheartedly affirm the duty of kindness and compassion, especially to inferiors, and we deny the common egalitarian presumption that recognition of one’s own superiority necessarily breeds proud, hard-hearted cruelty. Perhaps egalitarians argue this way because they know that if they were given superiority, this is how they would abuse it. If so, this warns us that egalitarians should be kept far from all power and influence.
But we affirm that in virtuous men, and especially virtuous Christian men, a recognition of their own superiority is in fact a powerful motive to kindness and compassion toward their inferiors. Indeed, insofar as a race can know itself to be superior, it thereby is strictly bound to the following duties summarized in the Larger Catechism:
Q. 129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
A. It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and, by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God hath put upon them.
When a superior refuses to do these duties, he is not being kind or compassionate, neither to himself, nor to his inferiors. Rather, he is disobeying God, and failing to serve his fellow men.
We add furthermore that an honest student of history will observe countless instances of white Christians, conscious of their own racial superiority, who have behaved precisely in this upright manner toward their racial inferiors. See the various examples we gave from American history.
7. Churches ought never be segregated by race
We deny this, especially because of how revolutionary and harmful it would be if applied consistently. For most churches across the world today are segregated by race de facto, and to force a change in this would require an unthinkable imposition of ecclesiastical tyranny.
We also deny that de jure racial segregation in the church is always unlawful. We do grant that certain hypothetical forms of racial segregation could be harmful. For example, if a church forbid the mere presence of a single racial stranger in its assemblies. Or if a church in its segregation policies publicly denied the spiritual unity of believers of different races and refuses believers access to the sacraments based on race. But we have never seen a single example of either of these hypotheticals, whether in history, or in the present, at least among true Christian churches.
What we have seen in history, however, is some measure of de jure racial segregation made according to prudence, in order to prevent real evils. For example, in the 16th century, many Protestants were displaced from their homes by persecution, and in their countries of refuge they usually founded their own separate “Stranger Churches.” This is an example of ethnic segregation, but it was quite appropriate, given various practical barriers between the ethnicities, and the various challenges that come to cities from large populations of immigrants.
For another example, in the Southern churches under slavery, blacks and whites commonly worshiped in the same church buildings, though blacks sat in the galleries. This seems to have been a prudent rule, given the vast differences between free whites and enslaved Africans, and the impropriety of unrestricted social mixing between the two groups. In Old Southern society, such mixing would have been tantamount to violent social revolution, which the church ought never countenance. We would note, however, that the antebellum South featured a much higher degree of racial interaction, even in church, than we usually see in the “integrated” South today. Recall the moving testimonies to this from Rev. E. T. Baird given in article 4. So the degree of segregation should not be exaggerated. Or perhaps better said, we should recognized that the strong class segregation that slavery already imposed at that time, meant that further geographical, domestic, and ecclesiastical segregation of the races was not necessary.
All through the ensuing strife of war, and Reconstruction, and “civil rights,” until fairly recently, Southern churches still maintained some racial segregation, whether in segregated seating, segregated congregations, or segregated denominations. The liberal Southern Presbyterian church the present author grew up in had distinctly white and black churches that were united in one presbytery. Now we cannot say, not knowing each church’s particular situation, that every policy in every church was perfectly prudent and just. But neither can we grant that every policy that segregates at all by race is ipso facto evil. Especially when we consider how the century spanning from the 1860s to the 1960s was full of racial strife, which at times overflowed into deadly violence. If an objector could not grant racial segregation on other grounds, could he not at least grant it on the grounds of preventing racial violence from spilling over into the church, and thereby disrupting its worship and service?
To deal with this question a bit more abstractly, we should not deny to the visible church the authority, and indeed the duty, to order outward circumstances, to maintain its membership, and determine its policies, in a way that best conduces for the good of its own people under Christ. That the visible church must so order outward circumstances, is demanded by the fact that it exists in this present world, and must therefore deal with temporal realities, from the reality of mowing its lawn and repairing its building, to the more weighty reality of racial difference. That the visible church has a right to order such circumstances, is proven by the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. In it, during a time of strife between Jews and Gentiles, the church determined to require the Gentiles, among other things, to restrain their own liberty in eating certain foods (vv. 20, 29), in order not to be a scandal to the Jews. Situations differ, but the principle remains: the church may, and must, deal wisely with the circumstances of this life in which it finds itself.
Consider an analogous concrete example. Churches today usually practice strict segregation in their seating, as members are separated by their families. Rarely would a policy ever have to be made to enforce this, but in the strange case that children, or especially spouses, were routinely mixing with other families, imposing such a policy might be prudent to avoid scandal. Whether imposed by rule or not, is such segregation in seating a sin? Of course not. Neither therefore is it by analogy a sin, at least not in itself, for the auditorium to be segregated by race. For like family, race is a merely natural distinction; indeed, races are highly extended families.
Consider the analogy of segregation by language. The madness of modern immigration has brought Babel to our cities. Some places seem to be becoming multi-lingual overnight. What do we do when a sincere seeker or convert wants to come to church with us, but does not speak English well enough to profit from the sermons? Some churches offer translation services, or English classes. Others do their best to help the visitor find a church nearby that worships in his native tongue. In many cases, the best choice will be to tell the immigrant, with love, that it is best for his own interests, as well as those of his host country, for him to return to his own land, and find (or help to found) the best church that he can among his people. Whatever the solution, some type of segregation is required. Those who may be totally united in the Lord, because they are not united in one natural respect, language, cannot be totally united in the outward communion of the visible church. It is no sin to recognize this is the case with language, and to deal accordingly. We challenge any objector to argue why these same distinctions cannot be applied to segregation by race. Especially as in the concrete, ethnic and linguistic differences so often come together. On this see article 3.
Consider also the analogy of distinct national churches, e.g. the Presbyterian Church of East Africa (in Kenya), versus the Presbyterian Church in America. When churches are segregated in this manner, we understand that segregation is no sin, but again, a prudent ordering of outward circumstances. This happens even when the national boundaries between the churches are relatively small, as when churches planted in white Canada by white Americans are eventually divided off into their own Canadian denomination. Such separation is no proof of spiritual disunity, but rather serves spiritual unity, by equipping the churches for freer gospel witness to their own people, and to the world. What then when even stronger national boundaries are observed to exist within the confines of one place? Is separation therefore not allowed, because the distinct nations happen to reside in the same region? We recognize this analogy is complicated by questions of distance, finances, politics, and history. But one thing it certainly proves, is that ecclesiastical segregation on the basis of national distinctions, is not in itself a sin, but may in fact be prudent in the proper circumstances.
We have not even mentioned the positive benefits that recommend ethnic homogeneity in church. Diversity brings difficulty, but similarity is a help to unity in every sphere, even the ecclesiastical. The example of Dutch immigrant churches established in the 20th century in North America powerfully illustrates this fact. Though not unwelcoming to the non-Dutch, these churches are largely ethnically homogeneous. They thus partake of the ethnic character of their members: like Dutch businesses and homes, Dutch churches are well-organized, well-funded, and highly successful. The Dutch culture of strong families, hard work, and stubborn virtue suffuses everything in church. For example, it is not uncommon to see three or four generations sitting together in the pew. Nor is it rare for a church to have hundreds of committed members who never miss a service, and among them, a greater number of qualified men than it ever strictly needs to serve in eldership. Nor are Dutch elders slack in duty, but are proverbially diligent in visiting, teaching, and serving in their consistories, classes, and synods.
These blessings are not merely ethnic. They are most certainly also spiritual. But we cannot deny that Dutch spiritual blessings come in part by the help of Dutch ethnic blessings. Nor can we deny that if their Dutch ethnicity was diluted or replaced, even if all other things remained the same, it is unlikely that those churches would enjoy such degree of blessing. Many non-Dutch churches, even those which we believe to be more pure in worship and doctrine, nonetheless have never experienced the same sort and degree of blessings as the Dutch, we believe in part because they do not benefit from Dutch ethnic homogeneity. We leave to various churches, Dutch or otherwise, how to apply this observation in their own circumstances.
Finally, we plead the example of various non-white racially-homogenous churches today, for whom the right to racial separation is sometimes asserted, even publicly (e.g. here), without much opposition. We suspect because of this that at least some of the animus against racial segregation in white churches is more properly called anti-white, than anti-segregation.
8. Paul rebuked Peter for racial segregation in Galatians 2:11–14
This objection fails to distinguish properly. Peter, a Jew, did “separate himself” from eating with the Gentiles (v. 12). We could call this a sort of racial segregation, formally. But the problem is not with the form, but with the reason. Paul rebukes Peter’s actions as a failure to walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel (v. 14). How did Peter deny the gospel by his actions? The context is the conflict with the Judaizing heretics, against whom Galatians is chiefly written. It appears certain of these heretics were the men who came “from James,” who caused Peter to withdraw from the Gentiles (v. 12). Their opposition to fellowship with Gentiles was not simply racial, it was chiefly religious. They believed that circumcision (a religious sign, only incidentally racial) was still required, not only by God’s command, as an abiding sacrament (as with baptism in the New Testament), but in particular, required for justification, as a meritorious work. Therefore Peter’s yielding to their shunning of the Gentiles was in principle a denial of justification by faith alone. Moreover, it was a hypocritical denial of Peter’s own prior practice: before the heretics swayed him, he ate with Gentiles (v. 12), and lived like them (v. 14). It appears from Paul’s argument that Peter’s initial practice was a statement, not of racial egalitarianism, but of spiritual communion (just as the sharing of possessions in Acts 2:45 does not teach communism, but brotherly Christian love). By that practice Peter had clearly communicated, with apostolic authority, that the believing Gentiles belonged to Christ by faith just as much as did the believing Jews. His cowardly change of practice then sharply contradicted this. Note furthermore how Paul argues in verse 16, powerfully insisting that justification is not by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, and how this passage serves as a transition to Paul’s further treatment of justification in the ensuing chapters.
What is condemned here, then, is the denial of the gospel of justification by faith alone, not racial segregation in itself. Paul’s rebuke left Peter free to practice racial segregation in other ways that did not implicate him in heresy. No doubt simply by being Jewish, he ate much more often with his Jewish family, and with other fellow Jews. No doubt when he did eat with Gentiles, he would take care to do so in a way that did not scandalize his fellow Jews, especially in that unique time of transition, in which it was still permissible, though no longer obligatory, to keep the ceremonial law. Compare William Perkins on this passage (here, p. 107): “The fact of Peter considered by itself, is not a sin: for Paul did the like in playing the Jew: but the circumstances make it a sin.”
Nor should we speculate that Peter’s prior eating with Gentiles proves that members of the apostolic church practiced totally promiscuous social fellowship between all races, whether between Jews and Gentiles, or among various Gentile nations. We assume that in the distinct local churches of that time, just as today, their ethnic character would normally reflect that of their neighborhood. Compare how Acts 6:1 alludes in the church to distinct parties, “Grecians” and “Hebrews,” and Colossians 3:11 to “Barbarian” and “Scythian.” Whatever the case was in the early church, this passage does not condemn the racial segregation practiced in the historic churches of the American South, as this was a prudent application of church power in their particular circumstances, and did not implicate them in any denial of justification by faith, or of the spiritual unity there is in Christ between believers of different races. Nor did it even remove all social interaction between the races, but rather set up prudent boundaries so that their interaction would not bring harm and scandal.
9. Inter-racial marriages are legitimate
We dealt at length with this objection in the reply to Johnson, argument 15. We quote most of that portion here:
I do not assert that inter-ethnic or inter-racial marriage is in itself unlawful, strictly forbidden in all its forms by Scripture and nature, as in the case of so-called “gay marriage.” I did and do affirm there are examples of it in Scripture, and though examples do not themselves make law, I do not assert that they are all bad examples. What I do assert is this, that given various serious factors—the enormous importance of the choice of one’s spouse, the weighty consequences that choice brings for the couple, their children, their family, and their nation, the blessings that come from affinity and similarity in marriage, the special love we owe to family, kin, and nation, the differences God has established in providence between races and nations, the woeful reality of racial strife, which appears only to be increasing, and other not insignificant special challenges that come to spouses and their children through inter-racial marriage—it is usually not wise, not prudent, not best to marry across a large ethnic boundary, and all the less so the greater that boundary is. And yes, we do affirm, as should all people, that it is a sin not to be wise, not to be prudent, and not to choose the best we can, even among things that may be lawful in themselves.
To address Mr. Johnson’s concern directly: I do not assert that what is unlawful is inter-racial marriage per se. Rather, what is unlawful is to be imprudent. And inter-racial marriage is often imprudent. Indeed in some extreme forms it is always imprudent, or at least so often imprudent that rules should be enforced against it, in the family, or even in the state, as in Christian America until 1967.
It appears to us this is the chief practical objection on the minds of Christian opponents of race realism, so we will take a bit more space here to deal with two particular arguments they often bring.
(1) Marriage is a matter of free choice. Christians may marry any Christian (1 Cor. 7:39)
It is true that marriage is a matter of “free choice,” if by that term is meant, the uncoerced consent of the will of an adult capable of giving it. Both spouses must freely say, “I do.” Even in the case of an arranged marriage, this freedom must be honored (so it was in Rebekah’s case, Gen. 24:57–58).
But this is not all that is meant here. For prohibiting inter-racial marriage does not coerce anyone’s consent. It simply forbids the granting of that consent in certain discrete cases. “Free choice” in this objection speaks not of a natural freedom in giving consent without coercion, according to the nature of the marriage vow, but of a libertarian freedom in doing anything, without influence or opposition, according to a person’s whim. It is commonly expressed in the phrase, “I’ll do whatever I want.” But if what you want is immoral, or imprudent, or harmful, you shouldn’t do it, and you may, and in many cases must, be forbidden from doing it, by the exercise of a legitimate authority.
The apostle Paul is exercising such an authority in 1 Corinthians 7:39. He says the Christian widow may not marry anyone she wants, without qualification. She may marry “only in the Lord.” The prudence of this counsel is explained at greater length in 2 Corinthians 6:14, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
Paul’s command to exercise prudence in regard to religious differences recommends a similar exercise of prudence when it comes to non-religious differences. We ought not enter marriage “unequally yoked” in other ways as well. The question of Amos 3:3 is relevant even in natural things, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” This is recognized by common wisdom, that a good marriage demands compatibility. Similis simili gaudet, like rejoices in like. Not all differences will make a marriage choice imprudent, but the larger the difference, the more likely it will be a barrier to domestic happiness.
Consider other differences that are not religious, but that would render a marriage inadvisable. What if the man is fifty years older than the woman? Or the woman twenty years older than the man? What if the man is significantly less intelligent than the woman? What if the man and woman do not speak a common language? “Only in the Lord” does not allow us to ignore these natural differences. Nor does it allow us to ignore natural differences of race, and all the other differences that usually come with it. See article 3.
(2) Opposing inter-racial marriage calls into question legitimate marriages, and thus threatens discontentment
An imprudent marriage is not thereby illegitimate. Except in cases where previously established civil statutes declare it to be invalid (as in Ezra 10), an inter-racial marriage between one man and one woman, established publicly by free consent, is valid, and permanently binding. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6).
Nor does a later recognition of an imprudent choice of spouse require discontentment. It may bring shame and disappointment, but this should be dealt with by confession before God, commitment to act with greater prudence in the future, and cheerful service in the present circumstances. God is very merciful and gracious, and will deal tenderly with those who humbly recognize they’ve made mistakes.
This is a principle that applies beyond the present controversy. People often choose spouses imprudently, even within their race. I have met long-married Christian couples who freely say that knowing what they both know now, they should have never married, but that God has over-ruled their youthful foolishness and blessed them far beyond all expectations. We see no reason why an inter-racial couple could not humbly recognize their marriage was imprudent, while gladly submitting to God’s perfect providence, and committing to serve each other, until death do them part.
10. Ethnically-specific laws in the Old Testament were unique to ancient Israel
The Mosaic civil law did require ethnic discrimination in various ways, including in its strict prohibition of Israelite-Canaanite marriage. For more examples see article 2. The ancient commonwealth of Israel no longer exists, and therefore this law that was its constitution has expired. However, that law’s general equity, the universal moral principles on which it was based, could not and did not expire. As long as there remain moral grounds for ethnic discrimination, then such discrimination may and ought to be practiced, and even codified in modern law. We must always respect the difference in times and circumstances between our nations and ancient Israel. But to draw on the Mosaic law for examples and guidance in writing our own laws, is both prudent, and reverent, as there is no other civil constitution in the history of mankind that was given by divine inspiration. None of its laws, even its ethnically-specific laws, were in the least unjust. Nor therefore would similar laws in similar circumstances today be unjust.
Some will argue here that Old Testament law was typical, speaking of Christ, salvation, and the New Testament to come. We do not deny such spiritual interpretation of Old Testament law. But we do deny that therefore we may make no political and social interpretation of it, as we did in article 2. Such interpretation is common in sound Christian authors throughout history, and we are not ashamed to follow them in this. See the reply to Johnson, argument 11.
11. Old Testament racial segregation was only on account of morality and religion
It is true that the racial segregation enjoined in the civil law had moral and religious reasons. God says Canaanite daughters were not to be taken in marriage, “For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods” (Deut. 7:3). But are morality and religion therefore the only reasons? Was there no other ground of equity in such laws, whether from natural affection and affinity, or some other principles observed by prudence and propriety? If so, this must be proven, not merely asserted.
Moreover, if it is proven, it is no argument against wise policies of racial segregation today. For even if those segregation laws had no other reason than morality and religion, this does nothing to hinder our own segregation laws from citing other equitable reasons. Promoting the morality and religion of a people may be the highest aim of government, but it is not its only aim.
Yet whatever other reasons may recommend segregation today, the most compelling reason for it is precisely that given by God in Deuteronomy, that of morality and religion. Historic Southern segregation protected a more virtuous, civilized, and Christianized white population from harmful association with blacks who were significantly less virtuous, civilized, and Christianized. Recall from article 3 that blacks committed 64% of U.S. murders in 2021, and black men are four times more likely to be incarcerated than white men, even after statistics are adjusted for income. Black families are proverbially broken and dysfunctional. Black Christianity often has more emotion than substance. The most sound, orthodox, historic Protestant churches in our nation were founded, and today are led, almost entirely by whites. The rare black ministers among them are often notoriously subversive (we gave a few examples in article 1). Neither are there similarly orthodox black churches, nor do black people join solid white churches, in any significant number. We believe and hope the grace of Christ will change this one day, but at present, it is an undeniable reality.
We do not attribute to all black people the same form and depth of godless degeneracy as marked the ancient Canaanites. But the analogy does hold, as does the equity of putting up some legal barriers today for the protection of our white Christian people. If someone should object that whites are far less Christian than they used to be, we do affirm this with deep sadness. But blacks are far less Christian than they used to be as well, and we would not affirm that their own course of apostasy has been any slower than that of whites. Moreover, the spiritual regression of our own people should give us all the more, not less, a reason to impose laws to protect them from further spiritual harm.
Some argue from evangelism here, that segregation would keep non-white souls from hearing the gospel. They apply the same argument to immigration: let the heathen freely come to our shores, and bring the mission field to us! Better reasoning would say that just as with ancient Israel, so America will be all the more a light to the nations as its own spiritual character is carefully protected from harmful foreign influence. Also, history casts strong doubt upon this argument. The most famous and fruitful 19th-century foreign missionaries were sent from white nations, in a time in which those nations’ racial homogeneity was more carefully protected by law. Moreover, the antebellum Southern Presbyterians were more successful in evangelizing blacks than our white churches under integration. We challenge readers to consider the work of John L. Girardeau and C. C. Jones, then to supply even one example of an evangelist among our modern “anti-racists” who has been so highly beloved among blacks, and so beneficial to their everlasting souls.
On this objection, see also the reply to Johnson, argument 14.
12. There is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ, Galatians 3:28
This passage, and its parallel in Colossians 3:11, is treated as an invincible “defeater” argument against race realism. Yet it is not. Rather, it reveals the false, unbiblical, egalitarian presumptions of those who think it is. This is so by three clear reasons.
First, relatively few men are “in Christ.” The majority of the globe does not even profess Christianity. And among those called into the communion of the visible church, the Lord Jesus himself says, “few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). We gladly affirm the spiritual unity of all men who believe in Christ, from every nation, tribe, and tongue. They have “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:5–6). But of the rest we say, they are “strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). We doubt that our opponents really wish to say that their proposed egalitarian political equality should apply only to true believing Christians. This would require magistrates to search men’s souls, and see the secrets of their hearts, before they granted them citizenship in their utopian non-segregated commonwealth. They neither can do this, nor should.
Second, if some would take “in Christ” to speak, not of individual faith, but of the economy of the covenant of grace, by way of contrast with the Old Testament when Christ had not yet come in the flesh, this also makes no sense. For Galatians 3:28 was true in the Old Testament as well. Abraham and his faithful believing servant, Eliezer of Damascus (Gen. 15:2; ch. 24), both believed in Christ, and enjoyed spiritual unity, despite their ethnic, domestic, and political inequality (see esp. Gen. 24:27). Some similarly cite Ephesians 2:12–14 against race realism, as if the coming of the New Testament had overturned all ethnic distinctions. We agree that Christ’s coming revoked the civil law of Moses, and the ceremonial law, and inaugurated the evangelism of the entire globe (Matt. 28:19). But in the Great Commission, “teach all nations” assumes that nations are distinct, and will remain so, even as they will in heaven (Rev. 7:19).
Third, suppose we granted (though we don’t concede it) that Paul’s words required a “race-blind” society, in which ethnic distinctions like “Jew” and “Greek” were totally ignored, or even intentionally erased, by the promotion of miscegenation. We would then by force of argument have to grant that the other distinctions in the verse should also be ignored. Society would have to be, not only race-blind, but also class-blind, and sex-blind. Together with slavery, all political or economic subjection would have to be abolished, because “there is neither bond nor free.” The recent laws that countenance “gay marriage” would have to stand, and we could not say anything against feminism, or even transgenderism, because “there is neither male nor female.” We expect every true Christian to recoil at the absurdity of these conclusions. But we are not unaware that certain liberal heretics boldly assert all these absurdities from this same text. Christians have no business joining them in such a shameless twisting of the Scriptures.
13. Racial minorities deserve civil rights
We distinguish: civil rights are not natural rights. The former are positive, changeable according to circumstances, and the latter moral, permanent, and unchangeable. Moreover, natural rights are determined according to nature, and not all men are entirely the same by nature. Equality before the law does not mean equality of nature, or of status. Nor does it require an equality of privileges, especially if such equality is enforced in a way that destroys or ignores natural distinctions. Finally, civil rights are good only as they tend toward the securing of civil common good.
So to be specific, no man has a natural right to vote, to hold civil office, or to live in whatever neighborhood, or make use of whatever water fountain, amusement park, or classroom he may choose. These are all privileges, and it is no sin in itself not to grant them to any particular group, especially when the group is an unassimilated foreign racial minority. Now, a civil right to these things may be granted, even to foreign minorities, but this should only be done in a way that best serves the common good. Moreover, even after such a civil right is granted, it can be revoked without any sin against natural or moral law, and should be, when it becomes obvious that it has failed to serve the common good.
The question of civil rights for racial minorities, then, is, “Do they serve the common good?” Let’s consider some specifics. Did black suffrage serve the common good? Not in the least: blacks consistently vote for the worst politicians, as do other racial minorities in America. Did it serve the common good to forbid racial discrimination in housing? It did not: rather, it spurred “white flight,” a form of ethnic replacement in which white families have to abandon their homes, some of them various times over, out of legitimate fear for their safety, when non-whites move into their area in any significant number. Did it serve the common good to integrate white schools at gunpoint? No, it did not. The influence of blacks upon the morality and safety of white children has not been wholesome, to put it lightly. The presence of distinct black and white intelligence in the same classroom now means neither group can be well served according to its needs. And the particular “white flight” that school integration caused, in the fairly recent founding of the nation’s many private schools, and in the more recent trend toward home-schooling, has drained public schools of their best and most devoted families, quickening their downward spiral into the moral and intellectual abyss. We are not blaming whites for the condition of the public schools: we affirm the wisdom of not using them. But as the majority of our nation’s children still use them, their degradation means the degradation of our nation.
We could go on, but we conclude in general that we find the “civil rights” narrative of bold sit-ins at lunch counters to be a sentimental cover-up for what was in fact a destructive social revolution, which has brought serious harm to the majority white population in America, as well as to blacks and other minorities. Such civil rights deserve to be repealed.
14. Discrimination, partiality, and prejudice are sins
These things are not sins in themselves, but only in their abuse. Morality must honor particularity, and in that respect it can be immoral not to discriminate. For example, when obeying “Honor thy father and thy mother,” it is essential to discriminate my father and my mother from all others. It is true that Scripture condemns partiality under the term “respect of persons” (James 2:1, 9), but this is properly defined as the making of a judgment according to qualities of persons which do not support that judgment. In the context of James 2, the example is that of giving a rich man special honor in the church, though wealth is not a reliable indicator of a good spiritual condition. In the same passage, James reminds his hearers that the wealthy are persecutors of poor Christians, and blasphemers (vv. 6–7). This reminder could be described as a wholesome apostolic prejudice, made according to reasonable generalization from experience. So however strongly James condemns partiality (rightly defined), he does not condemn all prejudice.
When applied to racial matters, discrimination and prejudice can be not only wholesome, but even life-saving. When a white father observes a dozen dark young men arriving at a gas station, it is no sin for him to stop the pump and leave immediately. When a white woman finds herself alone in an elevator (not recommended), and a tall, strong black man walks in, she does no wrong to him to exit quickly. When a white family sees neighboring houses begin to be filled up with unfriendly foreigners, we cannot blame them for at least considering a move. To teach whites to be ashamed of such prudent self-preservation shows a great lack of love for them, and a suppression, whether ignorant or malicious, of facts observed by common sense.
15. Racial hatred, animosity, and vainglory are sins
Yes they are, and we by no means advocate them. Furthermore, in speaking of the sins of other races, we do not forget the besetting sins of white men, or of the degeneracy found in our own race. Moreover, insofar as whites have greater power, they have greater responsibility, and their sins are also all the more destructive. The 20th century in Europe revealed the horrors that can come from the abuse of white political and military power. And insofar as whites have spiritual blessings above other races, God will hold them all the more strictly to account for those blessings, as well as for their unthankful rejection of them.
We deny, however, that a reasonable assertion of racial superiority, even in regard to one’s own race, is necessarily hateful or vainglorious. On this see objection 6 above.
16. We ought not play racial identity politics, or adopt a victim mentality
We sympathize with this objection. We find so-called “critical race theorists” to be shrill racial partisans, and believe all men have a duty to flee unthinking bigotry and cultivate a liberal mind. We furthermore abhor a spirit of ungrateful complaining, even under real oppression, and especially an envious critique of others for their privileges, whether deserved or undeserved.
We do not deny that white men ought to cultivate racial solidarity, and protest the persecution of their race. This is an urgent need, and without it, whites will not survive. But they should do it always from a position of confident superiority, and of calm, sober resolve. Moreover, they must do it with deep humility and meekness, and with sincere repentance, recognizing that their racial birthright is a gift from God, which he could justly take from them, if they should not repent of their own sins, or if in prosecuting their just cause they should mimic their wicked enemies, by asserting their rights in manner that is proud, ungrateful, envious, rebellious, or inhumane. Compare objection 6 above.
17. Speaking so bluntly about a race’s sins will drive that race away from the gospel
We grieve to hear Christians argue this way, for the truth is the exact opposite. Christ said, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick” (Luke 5:31). No man will seek the remedy before he knows his own disease. And how will he know, if no one tells him?
In the New Testament, the apostles and evangelists converted thousands from various races, yet they by no means withheld racially-specific condemnations of sin. Stephen in Acts 7 spoke freely of Jewish sins. As did Peter preaching at Pentecost, when three thousand “men of Israel” (Acts 2:22) were “pricked in their heart” after he condemned them for crucifying the Lord (vv. 36–37). Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, pronounces specific condemnations upon specific Gentile nations. He chides the Greeks for their absurd multiplication of false gods (Acts 17:22–23, cf. v. 16), and how their vaunted wisdom kept them from submitting to the “foolishness” of Christ crucified (1 Cor. 1:22–23). And most notably, he says to Titus of the Cretians, “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true.” (Titus 1:12–13). We cannot think of many racial slurs today that are more intrinsically derogatory than “evil beasts.” Yet Paul makes no qualifications: it is always so, and this witness is true. And not only that, but the knowledge and application of this truth is necessary for the Cretians to be saved: “Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (v. 13).
Clearly implied is that even men from degenerate races may become “sound in the faith.” But this will never happen without their confessing and forsaking that degeneracy. Moreover, even if and when by grace a man does rise above his race, his natural connection to his kin will bring constant temptation to regress. Christ warns in Luke 14:26, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” We ought not spare men of any race from similar wholesome warnings.
Some argue here from the doctrine of total depravity, as if all men were exactly equal in their sins, citing Paul, “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Rom. 3:12). But properly that doctrine teaches that sin has rendered every man by nature incapable of doing any spiritual good, spiritually, unto salvation (Heb. 11:6; cf. 1 Cor. 2:14). It does not deny that sinful men can and do exercise natural virtue, that some men notably exercise it more than others, or that certain groups of sinners are more deeply vicious than the rest. By nature, all men are depraved, but not all men are degenerate.
Finally, this objection is often made with unstated exceptions. Many of the same preachers who would never mention black murder or fornication from the pulpit have no trouble multiplying public condemnations of the besetting sins, real or alleged, of whites. This is but one example of how “anti-racists” should rather be called “anti-white.”
18. Speaking about these matters is divisive, destroying precious unity, especially in the church
We wish with all our heart this issue did not occasion such division as it does. It seems that any assertion of race realism today, no matter how calm and charitable, stirs up vitriolic anger, and a consequent disturbance of peace and unity, especially in church. But we must ask two questions here. First, whose fault is this? It was not Elijah that troubled Israel (1 Kings 18:17–18). And second, though unity is very precious, at what cost must it be purchased? If in order to gain unity we must suppress common-sense truths about racial differences, censure white men for speaking for their people, and impose silence about white genocide and suicide, then the cost of unity is far too high.
We believe there is a better way. Indeed, it is the only safe way to arrive at unity and peace. It is the way of the apostle Paul: “By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:2). This is our aim, and by God’s grace, we will continue in it.
Articles in this Series
Christian Race Realism
1. Introduction
5. Objections
7. Bibliography