Christian Race Realism, part 6: Application
26 August 2024
Having introduced and defined Christian race realism, demonstrated it from Scripture and nature, illustrated it from history, and addressed objections to it, we now endeavor to apply it. As we said in article 1,
We must name, praise, and protect racial distinctions. As in all other matters, we must think and live according to reality. The application will of course stir up the greatest opposition, but truth not practiced might as well not be taught. If race is real, real duties follow.
We will consider these duties under nine headings, of which the last two, politics and church, will receive the most attention.
1. Study
The first duty regards our mind, that we must remedy our ignorance on racial matters.
In specific, reading up on current events regarding race is important for seeing the urgency of the issue. The “Great Replacement” of whites in their own countries is often denied as a false conspiracy theory, but the evidence for it is obvious to anyone willing to see it. Compare the first part of article 1.
Reading history also will help many to see that much of what is dismissed as “racist” today used to be simple common sense, and that the “progressive” narrative privileges novel views that are the product of destructive, anti-Christian social revolutions. Consider our dealing with history in article 4.
Reading biology and social science will help to give good grounding in empirical reality, and to dissolve false idealistic egalitarian assumptions. The data on criminality and on intelligence by race, when soberly considered, are particularly enlightening. See article 3. But we would emphasize as we did there that statistics should never replace common sense. Rather, formal science trains us for the better exercise of informal science, in our daily recognition of reality.
Reading Scripture is of utmost importance, because it explains the only way of salvation, without which all our knowledge will profit us nothing, but also because on this issue of race it offers much wisdom, and all of it divine. As we saw in article 2, the Bible teaches that God himself established racial difference, and recognized and protected that difference in various ways, including in the civil law of Moses. Moreover, Christians need to know the Bible well to counter the manifold abuses of it by the “anti-racists,” some of which we addressed directly in article 5.
In the bibliography to follow in article 7, we will recommend some particular starting points for further study in these areas.
2. Defense
Those who by careful study have been convinced of race realism have the duty to defend it, according to their calling and ability. This requires both courage and prudence, especially in our present “cancel culture.” In this defense, two specific difficulties are worth considering.
First, opponents label the race realist with various terms of reproach, including racist, white nationalist, white supremacist, and in the church, kinist. The best way to respond to this is first by discerning what those terms actually signify. Asking, “What do you mean?” can reveal the person has not thought through the relevant matters, or that he’s simply interested in destruction, not discussion. If so, it may be prudent just to end the conversation, perhaps with a rebuke. But if the person is willing, asking such a question can open a productive conversation. It may offer an opportunity to put the term to a good use by agreeing on a wholesome definition. For example, “If racist only means I think that race is real, and have a special love and loyalty for my own race, without malice toward any other, then I’m not ashamed to be a racist.” Or, “Of course I’m a white nationalist: my own nation is white, I love it, and I’m eager for its blessing and preservation.” Or, “Everyone is a white supremacist of some sort. Even leftists recognize that white nations presently rule supreme over the world. The difference is, they hate it, and I think it is a kind gift of God’s providence.”
My judgment is that race realists under pressure are too quick to totally reject such terms. This brings harm to the cause because it opens them to the charge of striving about words (2 Tim. 2:14; 1 Tim. 6:4), by focusing on terms more than on substance. It also indirectly affirms the reproachful use of terms which could serve as positive descriptions, and fails to defend like-minded men who have embraced them as such. Thus in an effort to be strategic, it threatens defeat by shooting allies, and not joining them in a united front against a common enemy. This can be illustrated with the term “kinist.” I myself prefer to be called a “race realist,” but I accept the term “kinist” because my disagreements with those who prefer that term are not essential to race realism, or they are relatively small, especially when contrasted with the errors of our common opponents. For example, as regards the overture on kinism presented to the 2019 synod of the Christian Reformed Church (here, p. 489), I stand against the CRC’s egalitarian abuse of Scripture, and with nearly all the “Commonly Held Beliefs of Kinists” (listed on p. 503).
Of course there will always be intramural debates among Christian race realists. But this is no reason to “cancel” each other. If we lament that racial egalitarians uncharitably denounce us, it is hypocritical to turn and do the same to each other. Moreover, some Christian race realists can be odd, unsavory, or even in some respects ungodly. In that case we ought to oppose precisely what is wrong, while still celebrating what is right. We need not fear the common tactic of “guilt by association.” Indeed, if it were applied with equity, the professing Christian racial egalitarians would be more guilty by far, for their opinion on race is the same as that embraced by the majority of the most godless anti-Christians of our present evil age, and the worst liberal and moderate subversives in the church itself.
Second, defending these matters among Christian brethren calls for special care. When speaking privately, we ought to recognize where people are, and where they’re not, and be careful not to force them to come farther than they’re willing (cf. 1 Cor. 3:2). We will be helped in patience by remembering our own prior struggles coming to the truth on race, and the high social cost of standing up for it, recognizing that to embrace the truth and pay that cost will take rare fortitude. As well as patience, this calls for humble prayer, that God will open eyes and strengthen feeble knees.
Opposition from Christians will be harder than from the world, as of all men, we love fellow believers most (Ps. 16:3), and Christian unity is such a precious gift (Ps. 133:1). It will be hardest of all when opposition comes from church elders, especially when joined by the threat of censure. If false charges do come, we counsel not yielding one inch on the truth, but also bearing the process patiently, giving honor to the established order of Christ’s church, not forgetting to esteem church leaders very highly in love for their work’s sake (1 Thess. 5:13), even if this aspect of their work is being wrongly done. If the time comes to leave a church, make sure to leave with a good conscience, preserving peace as far as in you lies (Rom. 12:18). And then make sure to find another faithful church as soon as possible. Satan would love to ruin bold defenders of the truth, by cutting them off totally from the “church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). More on this under point 9 below.
We conclude with the all-important grace of charity, which is so sadly rare in controversies on these matters. Whenever race is discussed, we ought to be ashamed to hear how quickly Christian conversation degenerates to bold denunciations, critique of error to condemnations of heresy, and concern for souls to declarations of hypocrisy. Paul warns that if I have not charity, I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2), and shows by his example that we ought to spend ourselves in love even for those who hate us for our love (2 Cor. 12:15). The very truth of race realism would call us to this. For if we ought to exercise the natural virtue of love for kin, how much more ought we to exercise the supernatural virtue of Christian charity, which shows its excellence over mere natural affection, by extending itself even to our enemies (Matt. 5:44).
3. Repentance
The truths we have presented in these articles cut deep. They call for the total destruction of the idol of egalitarianism, which is one of the most prominent false gods among the modern pantheon, widely worshiped even in professing Christian churches, especially in the form of “anti-racism.” Therefore we cannot be faithful to this cause without calling for deep, serious repentance. We will speak politically and ecclesiastically below: here we speak personally. Reader, you must repent of denying that race is real. You must repent of persecuting others for saying race is real, and for living accordingly. You must repent of envy, of covetous discontentment with the fact that men of certain races enjoy blessings those of other races don’t enjoy in the same degree. You must repent of the root of covetousness, which is idolatry (Col. 3:5), for in denying or demeaning men’s blessings, you defame the one whose sovereignty assigned those blessings, God himself, thinking that you would have dealt more justly than he did. “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” (Rom. 9:20).
Moreover, because race is real, so are racial besetting sins, and thus each race must be called to repent of them. We have previously discussed black sins (see especially article 3, under “Morality”), and here we call blacks to turn from them. Black men, you are my fellow human beings, but like the Cretians, you behave like evil beasts; therefore I must rebuke you sharply (Titus 1:12–13). You must repent of your gross fornication, your deeply broken families, your woeful criminality, and your wanton disregard for life, as in such shameful numbers you murder my own people, and especially your fellow blacks. You must repent of your false form of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5), by which so many in your churches shout “Lord, Lord,” but will be told on the last day, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matt. 7:23). You must also repent of your willful participation as a tool of godless social revolution. You willingly assisted in the burning down of Christendom, in the American South, in Rhodesia, in South Africa. And what have you gained from it but guilt and shame, and deeper slavery to sin and misery? In all these things you must repent of your own racial pride, which cannot abide an honest assessment of your race’s weaknesses and sins, especially from the lips of whites.
Now we confess that being black itself will not keep you from heaven: all from every nation who trust Jesus Christ and turn from sin are saved. But if pride in the blackness of your race keeps you from humiliation over the blackness of your soul, then you cannot be saved. God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34–35): he will cast unrepentant blacks into “the blackness of darkness for ever” (Jude 13).
We leave to other non-white races to consider and repent of their own evils, and we turn to the besetting sins of whites. I speak to my own brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: my natural affection for you calls me to an even deeper heartfelt sorrow for your manifold rebellion against God. White men, race realism testifies to blessings you’ve enjoyed above others. But it appears these blessings have puffed you up with godless pride. Our racial characteristics of virtue and intelligence, of exploration and invention, our inheritance of stable government, generational wealth, and global influence and power, are good, worthy of thankful celebration. But they are blessings merely natural, in themselves no proof of saving favor. Whatever Christian grace with which our white ancestors exercised their noble callings, their white sons today have fallen far from it. Without faith, without humility, without gratitude, our blessings have become our curses, and we abuse them by self-aggrandizement, love of money, gluttony, and senseless lust for pleasure. We choke upon our sumptuous food, and drown in the wine of our debauchery. Like the rich man in Luke 16, we have our good things in this life, but we will lose them all when we are sent to hell, while our racial inferiors who have hated sin and trusted Christ will go into the kingdom of God before us. O white man, you may rule on earth, but you will be a slave under the earth forever, if you will not repent.
I must continue with my people here. For in this age they have deeply degraded themselves by an unmentionably evil sin, that of suicidal despair. The prevailing anti-white hatred which stirred us up to write this series, has its worst form in white self-hatred. Of this deep evil, my dear kinsmen, you must deeply repent. Repent of joining our enemies in slandering our honorable fathers, calling their good deeds evil, exaggerating their real evils far out of proportion, and performing for the devil, flattering your conscience, and lying to God himself, by false repentance for false sins, falsely alleged against our race. Repent of taking the inheritance God gave to you, the lands you settled, conquered, and painstakingly cultivated, the wealth you earned by centuries of honest labor, and parceling it out to millions of strangers who hate you and your children. Repent of letting foreigners defy your borders, fill your neighborhoods, vote in your elections, rule your cities, and poison your bodies and your souls with foreign drugs and foreign vices. Repent of your refusal to marry women of your own, and to have children of your own, of your willful racial self-destruction by contraception and miscegenation. Repent, my fellow white men, most of all for your abandonment of the best part of our inheritance, the Christian faith, of your apostasy from Christ, the son of Shem into whose tents the sons of Japheth have been called to dwell (Gen. 9:27).
White men, in all these ways you have sinned not only against God, but against yourselves; not only against God’s holiness, but also against his kindness: not just his kindness to all men, but his kindness to you in particular. O self-hating white men, why would you forsake your own mercies? Why like Esau so despise your birthright as to sell it for a pot of stew? We plead with you to cast away all your transgressions, and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Japheth?
4. Honor
Most of the positive application proper to the theme of race could be summed up in the fifth commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” For races are extended families, special bonds of blood which call accordingly for special honor. Those bonds are all the stronger as they are the closer, so honoring our race must begin by honoring our household. Children must honor their parents by obeying them, wives their husbands by submitting to them, husbands their wives by lovingly leading them, parents their children by nurturing and disciplining them. We suspect that most of our day’s racial dysfunction is a product of familial dysfunction: as the family, so the nation, so the race. This can be a help to those who are overwhelmed at the large scale of racial issues today. Each individual may be at a loss to rescue his entire race, but by simply visiting his widowed grandmother, he plays a valuable part in that rescue.
Only on this foundation of filial piety may the duties to our broader relations be laid. We ought to flee the self-serving “virtue signal” of “telescopic philanthropy,” as well as any form of nationalism that ignores those in our nation closest to us.
Yet still, though every furnace gives the most warmth to those nearby, the hotter the furnace, the more it will also cast its heat to those beyond. So for our love: the stronger it is, the more it will extend beyond our family, tribe, and clan, to our whole nation, and our race, and from there to all mankind. The true Christian especially, whose chief love is for God exalted in the heavens, ought to include all lesser earthly things as well within the compass of that love. So ought believers, of all men, not be indifferent toward their ethnic brethren, their kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom. 9:3). Those who honor God have every reason to honor their race.
5. Marriage
We dealt already with the question of inter-racial marriage in article 5, objection 9. Here it seems good to expand on three things by way of application.
First, we need especially in marriage to destroy the modern idol of individualism, and of libertarian free choice. The phrase “I’ll do whatever I please” may have some usefulness in standing against radical communism, in which the individual is annihilated by amalgamation into the social mass, but it fails as a philosophy of life, spelling the ruin of families and nations. In marriage in particular, contrast the daughters of Zelophehad. In Numbers 27 the Lord commanded that, as their father had only daughters, they would receive his inheritance in order to maintain his name. However, in Numbers 36 came the concern that marrying into another tribe would remove that inheritance from their own. The Lord’s command again solved the hard case: “Let them marry to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry” (v. 6), which the daughters carefully obeyed (vv. 10–11). Their obedience is a rebuke to those today who would make their choice of spouse a matter of unfettered individual desire. These women did choose freely whom to marry, but they happily allowed that choice to be limited, even by strict law, according to what was best for their nation, their tribe, and their father’s name and inheritance.
This example has relevance beyond the Old Testament. Marriage in any age is a union, not just of two individuals, but of two families, each of which form an organic part of a nation and a race. In principle each couple upon marrying binds their extended families to decades of life together, to weddings, funerals, reunions, graduations, and to the duties owed to future grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and cousins. Most families if asked would honestly prefer to have such fellowship within their race, even more narrowly within their nation. That couples today do not ask, is a shame. That they might ask, and are told no, but do it anyway, is further shame. Inter-racial marriages, now even decades after being decriminalized, are often still met with serious concerns expressed by family members. It’s commonplace to dismiss such concerns as “racist” and unloving. But such dismissal is a fruit of individualism, and a breaking of the fifth commandment.
Second, we need to let our idealistic dreams be shattered on the rock of hard reality. The harmless, stable inter-racial marriage is a rare exception, more often a mere fiction, especially in marriages which seek to bridge the giant chasm fixed between white Europeans and black Africans. The constant advertisements to the contrary are deceitful and demoralizing propaganda. Such marriages ignore the countless differences God himself established between the races of mankind—in color, features, height, health, custom, culture, food, place, politics, history, psychology, intelligence, morality, religion—only some of which can change within one lifetime, and most of those not drastically. Moreover, change in individuals does not mean change in their respective families or peoples; yet marriage is the joining of two families and peoples, as we saw.
This is not to mention the natural fruit of marriage, children. Inter-racial marriage sets large burdens on the shoulders of children who come from it—not belonging fully to either parent’s race, stuck in a no-man’s land of mounting racial conflict, at a disadvantage in their health and in their future marriage options—burdens which they never asked for, yet will have to bear throughout their lives, and pass on to some extent to their own children. This is especially so in white-black marriages, because black genetics usually express themselves so strongly in mixed offspring. Thus whites who marry blacks deal unkindly with their ancestors, by ending their centuries-long white genetic lineage, and with their future children, by in most cases passing on less intelligence than they would otherwise, and also by deciding for their children that, according to strong social custom, they will likely be treated black and join with black culture, and thus be subject to the constant threat of its degeneracy.
How can two young people face all these issues, and still think it’s wise to charge ahead to marriage? Race realism would make them think more realistically.
Third, we must refuse to let our marriage be an instrument of godless social revolution. Yet inter-racial marriage has been such an instrument, at least in the United States, in two ways. First, it is a monument of the conquest of a political system foreign to our founding, as for over three hundred years our colonies and states had laws against mixed marriages. See article 4. Second, it was intentionally used as a stepping stone to the legal approval of perversion: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, striking down bans on “gay marriage”) drew intentionally upon Loving v. Virginia (1967, striking down bans on inter-racial marriage). Similarly, the so-called Respect for Marriage Act (2022) expressly aimed to uphold the validity of both same-sex and inter-racial marriage.
The revolutionary character of inter-racial marriage is also evident in Scripture, in which miscegenation is pictured as a tool of conquest. The Assyrians intentionally imported foreign men to erase the national identity of conquered Northern Israel (2 Kings 17:24). Moreover, God allowed an Israelite man to take a foreign female captive as a wife, provided that she shave her head, pare her nails, and “bewail her father and her mother a full month” (Deut. 21:11–13), as now their daughter, and part of their family line, is taken over by a total stranger.
In this, Scripture assumes male headship and patrilineal descent, that women in submitting to their husbands also assimilate together with their future children into their husband’s people. This helps explain why most examples of mixed marriages in Scripture involve Israelite men taking wives from foreign women, not the other way around. When an Israelite daughter married a foreign man, the line of Israelite descent ended with her (cf. Lev. 24:10–11; 1 Kings 7:13–14).
The enemies of the white race, though most are feminists, still use this natural sexual dynamic to their advantage. By publicly placarding countless images of white woman with black men, they project the conjugal conquest of white women as a means of securing total racial conquest over whites. Add to this what we mentioned above, that even when a man is white and a woman black, the dominance of black genetics and power of social custom will strongly pull their children to re-assimilate into the black race.
Finally, though we have had need to speak frankly here, we counsel care and patience when addressing those already in mixed marriages. We offer as a helpa letter written to friends in inter-racial marriages, which can give some ideas of how to speak with those who have already made a misstep in this matter.
We also would not unduly burden the consciences of those in unique circumstances. Some with just cause to be a racial sojourner may find themselves with need to marry, and with no nearby prospects from among their people; it appears to us this was the case with Joseph in Egypt, and Moses in Midian. Though do recall Isaac and Abraham’s insistence that their sons take pains to find wives from their kin. Some may meet other barriers, like that of false religion, that make marrying within their race a practical impossibility. For all seeking to marry, race is by no means the only relevant question; as in so many other life decisions, wisdom considers countless factors, each according to their proper weight. We hope our treatment here gives help in this consideration.
6. Education
Children are the future, and their education shapes the future of their race. Therefore white families and white nations need to take a special care to instill in the white children a wholesome racial consciousness, and humble thankfulness for the blessings their race enjoys. Moreover, in education, we ought not fear racial segregation. Intellectual segregation is still known today, in dividing students by grades, and in special classes for the gifted, as is moral segregation, in schools that use detention and expulsion; less common but still practiced is religious segregation, in the Christian school. Why then do modern people balk at racial segregation? Especially since, because of the intellectual, moral, and religious differences between the races, the above forms of segregation often bring de facto racial segregation. Indeed such indirect forms of segregation, especially combined with the socio-economic segregation forced by large tuition bills in private schools, are often used by whites in order to secure white-only schooling for their children, while not incurring the ire of the civil rights regime. We admire the shrewdness of this, but wish whites did not have to act so clandestinely to preserve the interests of their children in their own countries. And we grieve that the price tags of private schools still leave many white children without this benefit.
Returning to de jure school segregation will bring great challenges, and call for great courage and wisdom, but we believe it would be worth the trouble. It would be best for white children, sparing them from physical and moral harm, better cultivating their unique gifts, and developing in them a wholesome racial consciousness. It would also be better for non-white children, as their particular needs would be able to be met more particularly. A witness to this are the “historically” (in truth, presently) black colleges and universities throughout America, from which gifted blacks may graduate with honor and go on to usefulness in their careers, while enjoying comfortable fellowship with their own people, whereas they would not have had the same success in a majority-white school, and would have been less comfortable as a minority. One example of the succesful contemporary implementation of racial segregation in education is the Movement for Christian Nationalist Education in South Africa, an organization which manages a network of 30 mono-ethnic Calvinist schools which are currently being attended by 2 500 Boer children.
To Christians who object to this we offer the illustration of home-schooling, which many Christians happily embrace today. Is not one reason for this embrace a proper disgust at the depths to which the integrated schools have fallen? Are white home-schooling parents not happy that their children are insulated from constant encounters with racial strangers? And is not the home-school often celebrated precisely as it is the strictest form of racial segregation? There is no racial bond tighter than that of the immediate family. And by that bond the home-school mother and her children enjoy the welcome help of the strongest possible natural affection, because they have the strongest possible natural affinity. We argue here that the help of such natural affinity should also be embraced in racially-segregated schools outside the home.
7. Publishing
A people’s reading shapes the people’s minds, and so to change our people, we must change their books. Especially in Christian publishing, all “liberation theology,” all “wokeness,” all “critical race theory,” and all half-measures toward those ends, like “colorblindness,” need to be removed from all published literature. The books that have pushed these errors are so insidious, and bring such harm to all who read them, that we would not object to see them burned (cf. Acts 19:19). Especially insofar as churches have a say in the activities of Christian publishers, they ought to speak ecclesiastically against those who would so pollute their readers’ minds, and cultivate such trouble in both church and state.
We add to this the cloying habit of pushing and praising non-white authors, simply because they are non-white. Of course it’s easy for a publisher to deny hidden intentions, but most people have a natural sensitivity to “tokenism,” and suspect it all the more in our day of “affirmative action.” Moreover, it harms the very cause it aims to serve, as when readers discover that a non-white work is not up to the level of a work by whites, they naturally develop doubt as to whether any non-white author is worth reading.
8. Politics
Here we must take more care and space, as politics is challenging, and can stir up the worst division. To help ourselves we distinguish between moral principles and their political applications, and in the latter between things that must be done and things that might be done, and in both of those, between things that will be done, and those that simply won’t, whether they ought or not. We recognize that all political action will be naturally limited by circumstances, and by the will of leaders, and of their people. Given these distinctions, we call on readers to exercise patience and charity, not just here, but in all related political discussions. It is best to take strong political pronouncements with the above qualifications understood, even if not stated. So for example, in these matters many embrace the power of the slogan: “Mass Deportations Now!” “Foreigners Out!” “America for the Americans!” But such sloganeers should not be slandered as a politically inept, because their message is simple. Catchy “sound bites” can be the public face of careful jurisprudence, which would apply these slogans skillfully and patiently in discrete circumstances, under the guidance of trustworthy, sober civil leaders. This is how we intend our political statements to be taken here.
National Repentance
We begin with a principle that is spiritual, yet also inescapably political, that of national repentance. White nations like America need to recognize that the present threat to their white people is spelled out in Scripture as a national judgment:
The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low (Deut. 28:43).
Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers (Isa. 1:7).
Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens (Lam. 5:2).
It may be the worst consequence of anti-race-realism, that white nations are not allowed to recognize themselves as nations, and thus are not allowed to see their own replacement by foreigners as a judgment of God, and thus are not moved to repent under that judgment. We plead with all white nations: God is judging you, by allowing foreigners to conquer you. Yes, those foreigners are sinning, and God will deal with them, but by them he is dealing with you, and if you will not repent, you will not survive. Where are the Canaanites today? The Americans, the English, the Germans, the Afrikaners will join them in total annihilation, if they as nations will not humbly bow before the Lord their judge, and kiss the Son of God (Ps. 2:12).
How does such national repentance happen? In Scripture, it is when the leaders of a nation, both ecclesiastical and civil, publicly confess the nation’s sins, publicly call for mourning over them, often by decreeing solemn public fasts, and publicly commit to serve the Lord, often by the solemn swearing of a public national covenant. Excellent examples of this are evident in Ezra (ch. 9), Nehemiah (ch. 9), Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29; 2 Kings 18), and Josiah (2 Chron. 34; 2 Kings 22–23), and outside Israel, in various kings (Dan. 3:29; 4:37; 6:26; Jon. 3), as well as in countless examples throughout the history of Western Christendom.
It does not appear that the leaders of today’s white nations are anywhere close to such repentance. In that case, their people still have their duty. They must repent of sins as individuals, as families, as churches, and as smaller political communities, under the leadership of lesser magistrates. And they must pray for their people and their rulers, interceding as Moses did for Israel (Ex. 33), as Daniel for Judah (Dan. 9), even as Abraham for Sodom (Gen. 18). Those who do so ought to be encouraged by the promise of 2 Chronicles 7:14:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Immigration
Here we summarize using a slogan mentioned above: “Foreigners Out!” We ought to recognize that for every nation, God has set the bounds of their habitation (Acts 17:27). This means that every nation has its proper home, including white nations, and as that home is theirs, it is their duty to keep it theirs, unless they would be conquered, enslaved, and destroyed.
We clarify that as in ancient Israel, so in modern nations, the foreign “sojourner” may have a place. But that place is as that of guest in someone else’s home. Such is not the place of the majority of foreigners today, at least not in white nations: whether or not they came in first as guests, they now are treated as family, though it’s obvious they aren’t. Whether this new arrangement was our fault, or theirs, or both, it doesn’t matter. It has to end, and quickly, for the good of the whole household, and its guests.
Practically this means, we must deport every single illegal immigrant, today, together with their families. To help this we should penalize those who employ them, reward those who report them, and as to the immigrants themselves, immediately cut off all their welfare benefits, and certainly not permit the madness of allowing them to vote in our elections. One of the most absurd benefits we give in America to foreign visitors is “territorial birthright citizenship,” that their children, simply by birth on American soil, become American citizens. It needs to end immediately. This article explains the matter well. The common objection to deportation, “Who then will pick our vegetables?” is greedy and lazy. White men are capable of picking their own vegetables, and the greater food costs that may come from no longer paying illegals paltry wages “under the table,” would be well worth the increase in our national unity.
But this is just a start. In America, very many “legal” immigrants are also a danger to our people, as they are neither able nor willing to assimilate into our founding stock of “White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.” This was not at first a problem, as per our 1790 Naturalization Act only free white persons of good character were eligible to become citizens. 19th-c. immigration through Ellis Island brought some serious changes to this, but the most drastic change came in 1965, with the passage of the Hart-Celler Act. The damage this act did to the makeup of America is incalculable. If our nation would survive, that act and all its consequences must be totally reversed. Some think it would be cruel to send back immigrants who were brought in under it, and now have lived for generations in America. But those immigrants still have their nations (indeed, many still visit them), and we have ours, to which by natural affection belongs our first and foremost duty. We should still practice humanity toward our long-term foreign guests, perhaps making the difficult move easier by paying them to leave, or otherwise encouraging voluntary repatriation, before turning to involuntary expulsion. But by whatever method, it is time for them to go. Foreigners Out!
Crime
Here is one place we ought to affirm “colorblindness.” Justice is blind, strictly punishing all duly proven crimes without respect of persons. “One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you” (Ex. 12:49). Such impartial application of justice would help take the edge off racial conflict. For example, the death penalty is an appropriate, fitting, indeed biblical punishment for murder, rape, and adultery. Its diligent use would do much to stem the tide of violence by black men and other violent foreigners. As would proportional strict punishment for theft and fornication, the latter having the additional benefit of reducing illegitimacy, and thus also of preventing children in America from being mixed-race, as per this study, 92% of biracial children with black fathers are illegitimate. If blacks and their supposed supporters would condemn such justice as “racist,” we should respond by doubling down on impartial enforcement, insisting that the proper way for blacks to avoid prosecution, is by avoiding crime.
Segregation
Such impartiality does not, however, oppose legal racial discrimination upon reasonable grounds. On this see article 5, objections 13 and 14. It is no sin for the magistrate to recognize racial differences, and legislate according to them. In specific, it is no sin for magistrates to impose some measure of racial segregation, when circumstances warrant it. Recall from article 2 the various ways that God himself segregated Israel from other nations, especially the Canaanites, and compare article 5, objections 10 and 11.
A reasonable beginning here would be to remove all legal barriers to de facto racial segregation, and all free racial association. It is absurd that even in their own nations, whites are forbidden from creating white-only neighborhoods, businesses, and schools. Even if their motive in doing so were only that they prefer their own people, the law should be no hindrance to this. But as we have seen, whites have various more weighty reasons to seek separation from others, not least of which is the maintenance of their own safety and morality.
After this, wise rulers should at least consider measures of de jure segregation. For models of this they have not only the Mosaic civil law, but also at least three centuries of modern jurisprudence, from places like America where Protestant rulers encountered extreme racial differences, and dealt with them by imposing various forms of racial segregation, as explained in article 4.
We are aware how revolutionary these proposals sound. But properly they are not revolutionary, but “counter-revolutionary,” as they aim to undo a prior overturning of nature and of wholesome civil law. We do not call for turning the world upside down, but right-side up. This will require enormous fortitude, as in the past, so all the more today, segregationists will have to nullify pronouncements of judiciaries, defy enactments of legislatures, and resist the bayonets of executives. But all true Christians already know this is the case in regard to other legalized evil, like abortion and “gay marriage.” It should not surprise them therefore that the same resistance is required against miscegenation. After all, it is the same “civil rights” regime that brought upon us all these modern evils. The entire egalitarian revolution must be destroyed, root and branch.
Employment
In the business world, all “affirmative action” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs should end immediately. Employers are abetting revolutionaries, harming customers, and destroying their own businesses, by intentionally employing the less qualified simply because they are “persons of color.” Again, however, we do not oppose all racial preference in employment. White-only businesses should have their place. In a white country, it is natural and normal to prefer to give jobs to white fellow countrymen, even at the expense of a strict “meritocracy.” For otherwise, under modern libertarian “free trade,” and especially under the Hart-Celler Act, average white citizens face competition from the best and brightest of the entire globe. This is unfair, unkind, and unpatriotic. “American jobs for Americans” is a sound slogan here. This and other forms of economic protectionism flow naturally from natural affection.
Suffrage
Many in America today are waking up to the disaster that came from the 19th Amendment, securing women’s suffrage. God gave women many gifts, but civil rule is not one of them; indeed, he mocks a people whose women rule over them (Isa. 3:12). Fewer see it, but the same is true of black suffrage, enacted by the 15th Amendment. Like women, blacks show themselves incapable of civil rule, inevitably becoming clients of their natural superiors, whether for good or ill. Today, it is most certainly for ill: blacks vote solidly for Democrats, a party sounder in the past, but now a gross public promoter of impiety, perversion, murder, and “anarcho-tyranny.” Unless we white men find strength to remove the franchise from those who cannot but abuse it, their votes will continue to harm our nation, and themselves. As we argued in article 5, objection 13, any civil right may be revoked if it does not serve the common good. But the black vote by no means serves the common good.
Moreover, under Hart-Celler immigration, the 15th Amendment allows countless other racial strangers access to the voting booth. Indeed one reason our politicians permit them to invade our country by the millions, is to obtain a loyal voting bloc. White men are fools to think this will end well for them.
Self-defense
Many will balk at this suggestion, but we must also mention the possibility of violent racial conflict. Of all men, Christians must be men of peace: to love killing in itself, or to use it for anything other than necessary justice, shows a callous disregard for life. But so does a refusal to recognize when true justice demands taking up arms. What if with the power whites still hold, we attempt as outlined above to restore racial order peaceably, but violent racial factions mobilize against us? Or what if whites lose their power in their countries, and their new rulers order their execution? What if Americans are subject to our own Bolshevik or Haitian revolution, threatening our murder by the tens of millions? If in our land we hear the genocidal chants now heard throughout South Africa? Should we simply submit to slaughter? We answer in the clearest terms: Not while we breathe. If the question of white existence must be answered by white arms, far better to die fighting than to passively accept extinction. Self-defense is a most obvious duty of nature, and of the moral law under the sixth commandment, an inalienable right of individuals, families, and nations. The wise white man today already carries a weapon when he must be in the bad part of town. God forbid it, but if the whole town turns bad, or the whole country, he must be armed and ready, not only as a man, but as a race. To say such self-defense will never be necessary, or should never be used in any case, reveals an ignorance of history, an indefensible pacifism, and a suicidal self-hatred, which so besets the white man in our age, and from which we say again, he must repent.
9. Church
If care was needed in applying race realism to the civil polity, all the more is it needed in the ecclesiastical. For the church is “the house of God” and “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15): if anywhere, then surely in the church, must nature, order, truth, and righteousness be honored and upheld.
Ministry
We begin with ministers, as they are Christ’s gift “for the perfecting of the saints” (Eph. 4:12). And we are bound here to call them to repentance, for many in this matter have made themselves enemies to those same saints. Pastors of white congregations must cease their callous indifference to their own people’s racial plight: to deny, downplay, or dismiss discussion of white genocide is heartless and discouraging, like saying to the naked and the hungry, “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled” (James 2:16). They must repent from tolerating, countenancing, and especially from inculcating “anti-racism,” especially when in doing so they wrest the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16; see article 5, objections 8, 10–12). We have seen ministers condemned by their own words, when they accuse the “kinist” of abusing Scripture, while boldly abusing it themselves to teach racial egalitarianism. They must repent of setting religious identity against national identity, or in particular, of using religion to entirely remove the racial character of national identity. They must stop treating “white nationalism” as heresy, but see instead that it is a lawful political conviction held by countless orthodox Protestants in history. Moreover, it is as American as apple pie (as shown in article 4), so when ministers condemn it, they are implying that no self-conscious “Heritage American” can be a Christian.
Moreover, in this and other matters, today’s ministers have need to repent of cowardly refusal to have anything to do with “controversial” people, and of unkind insistence that all trouble that surrounds bold tellers of the truth is their own fault. They must repent of uncharitable dealing with such men, and for dismissing their ideas without study or consideration. Sadly, it appears that in matters of race, broad social consensus is enough to put certain opinions, even when held by sound Christians, beyond the pale of Christian conversation. This ought not be. Why should the world determine discourse in the church? John said, “The friendship of the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4), and Christ, “That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15).
Finally, ministers today must repent of their repentance. Since the sixties American denominations have tripped over themselves to issue overtures against their “racist” past. But as we have argued at length, especially in articles 4 and 5, the race realism of historic godly Christians was not sinful, and thus not to be repented of. It should deeply trouble any sincere gospel minister that he might have had a hand in inculcating false repentance for false sins. For calling for such false repentance brings great harm: in the righteous, it saddens hearts and strikes against assurance, and in the wicked, it breeds self-righteousness, hardens against true repentance, and therefore tends toward damnation. It is subject to the condemnation of Ezekiel 13:22, “With lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life.” By promoting it, ministers of the gospel have, like Peter in Galatians 2:14, “walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” And therefore other ministers, like Paul, ought to withstand them to their face (v. 11).
We realize the repentance we are calling for is very deep, and very difficult. It requires an admission that the best of our ministers, men otherwise sound and godly, have been either ignorant, or cowardly, or both, in that they have failed to address, even to recognize, a weighty moral issue of our day, and a deep compromise within the modern church, and moreover, that they have dismissed, demeaned, and even destroyed men who would have exposed their failure. This hurt cannot be healed slightly (Jer. 6:14).
As a help in assessing and addressing this widespread problem, we encourage all to read this 1648 deliverance from the Church of Scotland, entitled, “Act for Censuring Ministers for their Silence, and not Speaking to the Corruptions of the Time.”
Missions
Missions, both foreign and domestic, is without doubt a duty of the Church of Christ, especially in the New Testament. But we also ought to realize that modern missions has become a major port of entry for egalitarian compromise. It is a common occasion for miscegenation, sometimes excused for the sake of winning foreigners, though we judge that taking a foreign people’s women in marriage, and otherwise threatening the borders of their national identity, is unlikely to win them. It is a frequent excuse for mass foreign immigration, often under color of taking in “refugees” and “asylees,” though many today who claim that status lie, and even in cases of real need, one country cannot take on all the “huddled masses” of the world. Even among the truly needy, the first duty of a white nation is toward its own, and then toward other whites, yet “refugee ministry” tends to serve mostly non-whites, and by its nature, only foreigners. There is a proper place for serving foreigners, but we are not convinced most of such ministries hold such a place. One reason is, they never seem to offer a critique of modern immigration, except when such critique calls for white borders to be opened further. Another is, they never seem to tell the migrants to go home, though for most of today’s migrants, going home would be the path of true repentance and true righteousness. To all appearances, and despite all good intentions, many of these ministries serve to the harm of their nations and their churches, and even to the refugees themselves, bring less spiritual good than advertised. Some of these ministries are deeply subversive, a Christian “fifth column” serving the modern racial revolution, and ought to be dealt with as such.
As regards priorities in missions, we recall the image of a furnace, which when warmer casts it heat the further, but still gives its best heat to those nearby. The church has a duty to teach all nations (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15), but not every positive duty is to be done at every time, in every way and degree, by everyone. In white nations today, our people languish spiritually; churches are few and far between, especially outside our cities, and in America, outside the “Bible Belt.” The churches we do have are weak, with countless nigh to death; many have already had their candlestick removed, and now are synagogues of Satan. With our people in such a state, it betrays a lack of natural affection, bordering on spiritual cruelty, to send off many of our best to foreign lands, while our own people hurtle by the millions into hell. Compare the famous 19th-century foreign missions movement: one condition of its success was the flourishing of Protestant Christendom in the sending countries. We cannot say that it is flourishing today in those same countries. Until it is, it is fitting for foreign missions not to be as high of a priority.
Again, we do not deny the duty of foreign missions. Nor would we say it should entirely cease today, or that no man is right to feel and heed a call to it. We simply insist on the wise application of natural affection in the discernment of this call. Like Christ weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 9:41), Paul was in anguish for the lost condition of his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). God did still send him as the “apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13), and he was right to go. But the book of Acts demonstrates the care Paul took still to evangelize his countrymen. Even as we long for all the nations to rejoice in Christ, we ought all the more long to see such joy return to our own nations. We believe the fields are “white to harvest” in white nations, and we pray therefore to the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into them (John 4:35; Matt. 9:38).
Segregation
The “anti-racist” revolution has put churches in a hard place. The church ought never countenance social and political disorder, but neither does it have the calling or the power to remove it altogether on its own. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3). A stable commonwealth is a normal precondition for a stable church: thus the church is to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:2).
Therefore in our disordered day, we are reluctant to lay down specific rules regarding racial segregation in the church. In article 5, objections 7 and 8, we affirmed the propriety of such rules, in principle, in fitting circumstances, such as those under which past orthodox churches practiced segregation. But this is not the same as requiring those same specific rules today. For one thing, all those churches practiced segregation in a society in which such segregation was common outside church, and in many places still enforced by law.
We do not say this to forbid all forms of racial segregation in the church today. Indeed, because the church cannot countenance social disorder, it has all the more reason to stand against a society the more that society is disordered. We only mean to emphasize that prudent dealing here requires great wisdom, patience, courage, and even godly ingenuity, all in ways specifically appropriate to each specific circumstance. We therefore cannot dictate what each church should do. But as a help in their discernment, we believe we can speak clearly on three things.
First, churches ought to embrace de facto racial segregation without shame. There is nothing wrong, at all, with churches that are entirely white (or for that matter, entirely black, entirely brown, etc.). It is a natural result of natural affection: men of the same sort like to live, to socialize, even to worship with each other. The church has absolutely no business forcing this to change. Indeed, as shown by the example of Dutch immigrant churches (given in article 5, objection 7), it has sound reasons to embrace it as a positive good, and a natural help to the fulfillment of its spiritual purposes.
Second, churches ought at least to recognize the difficulties that can come when racial strangers join a church. A small number of foreign visitors, perhaps even foreign members in special circumstances, especially in larger churches, will likely cause no trouble. If civil Israel could entertain the sojourner, why not the spiritual Israel, the church of Christ? Yet as in the civil household, so in the ecclesiastical, when foreigners are present in such numbers, or in such a manner, that the stranger threatens harm to the native, then problems come.
Take especially the case of black visitors in white churches in America. Blacks have now for over a century and a half been used by unscrupulous politicians as a tool to harm the white majority. Their crime rates are proverbial, and their own hatred of the white man often public and virulent. Many whites have worked hard to avoid proximity to blacks, including moving from the city to the suburbs, or from the suburbs to the country. So it is natural that they feel concern when blacks appear in the next pew in their white church. Add to this that in our climate white men fear they cannot express this concern; indeed that if they do, it is they who will be promptly segregated from the church. Ministers and elders ought not despise their members for thinking this way, and ought do all they can to help allay their fears.
We do recall the example of past Southern churches with both blacks and whites in membership, and recognize that this is not entirely impossible. Yet we also recall the terms of that arrangement were not racially egalitarian, as neither were the terms of black-white fellowship outside the church. So we doubt, even if resuming this past practice were desirable, that it would be fitting to our circumstances, or acceptable to all involved.
Third, churches never should countenance any rule, regarding race or otherwise, that compromises biblical principles, or betrays the gospel that the church must preach. Recall from article 5, objection 8, that Peter’s racial segregation in Galatians 2 was a sin precisely because it denied justification by faith alone. Insofar as any segregation today would so deny the gospel, we would strongly oppose it. We are sympathetic here to those who fear giving the appearance of such evil, and thus would never make any rule regarding race in church. Yet we counsel caution: the critical interpretation of a hostile world, or of a corrupt and worldly church, is not the rule of our obedience. Ministers need courage today to do what’s right, not what is merely popular, what best glorifies God and edifies Christ’s church, not what best avoids the criticism of the world.
Ordination
We see no reason why, by grace, at least some men from every race could not be qualified and called to gospel ministry, according to the rules given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Nor do we see why churches of various races would not recognize and honor each other’s ordinations. This is presently done between churches in different countries, and is a sweet confirmation of their spiritual unity in Christ. But this does not mean it is usually prudent for ministers of one race to serve members of another, at least in a stated, regular capacity.
Compare here the barrier of language. A minister who cannot speak a people’s language, cannot serve them, at least not without the burden of interpretation, which precludes regular stated ministry. Even a thick foreign accent is too great a burden for most church members. Racial differences often bring such language differences; if not, then still like language, race presents a natural barrier to ministry. Compare all the differences it usually brings with it, outlined in article 3.
In particular, we cannot see how it would ever be wise to appoint a black minister over a white church. In article 4 we saw that R. L. Dabney opposed the same in his own day, and we believe his reasons still apply to ours. As a general rule. blacks are intellectual inferiors to whites, but ministers, according to their duties, and the respect owed to their office, should be their people’s intellectual superiors. To appoint the weak to rule the strong is kind to neither: both will suffer. Indeed we fear one reason so many black ministers in white churches are so subversive today, is that they are given responsibilities beyond their actual abilities, which flatters them and makes them proud. We would add that a black man truly qualified for ministerial office is a rare blessing in our day, and that the most fitting use of his unique gifts would be in service to his own people, who stand in serious need of them. What a blessing it would be to see a sound black church, taught by solid black ministers. May the Lord grant this in his mercy.
Yet though the principle of civil kin-rule (Deut. 17:15) has an analogical application to the visible church, we must add that there could be exceptional circumstances in which a white minister or elder might be appointed serve in a black church, at least for a season. For the same reasons of intellect, whites are able to lead blacks in a way blacks cannot lead whites. And there is no necessary threat to racial boundaries if the white minister is careful to preserve them. Blacks themselves in the past understood the propriety of this, which is why so many of them gladly sat under the preaching of John Girardeau at Zion Church in Charleston, South Carolina (mentioned in article 5, objection 11). Given the sad state of black Christianity today, we do not know if the black church can be revived without such godly white missionary-pastors sent again to win black souls.
Something similar is understood in foreign missions today: America sends missionaries to Africa or Asia, but receives almost none back from them, and few complain, or think this is an insult to the Africans and Asians, or to the Americans. Rather, it is both sensible and compassionate. God granted the sons of Japheth enormous blessings spiritual and temporal above the other races, and they are therefore bound to exercise this racial superiority for the other races’ good. Non-whites need white leadership, even in spiritual things, and we are heartless to ignore this need because of a self-hating false humility.
Church Planting
We believe that in these articles we have spoken the truth regarding race. But we must face the fact that there are very few churches today where such truth is even tolerated, much less taught. Practically speaking, the behavior of its opponents in many cases threatens race realists with exile from present churches, no matter how godly or orthodox the race realists themselves may be. What then are they to do?
Reiterating what we counseled in point 2 above, the best we can, we should serve patiently within the present churches, showing all due submission to their present leadership, remembering that Christ counseled submission even to the Pharisees of his own day (Matt. 23:2), and that we must not forsake assembling (Heb. 10:25). Now, we ought not be naïve in this—Micah warns us, “Put ye not confidence in a guide” (Micah 7:5), and the Bereans tested even the apostles by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11)—but neither should we be uncharitable, impatient, or rebellious. Recall that race realism is not revolutionary, but rather, counter-revolutionary.
Even heeding all this counsel, some will be forced to leave their churches. Indeed, many already have been. Many, whether safely in a church or not, are wondering, What’s next? Is it the time to plant new churches that openly embrace race realism?
We say, With God’s help, yes it is. If only because it’s always time to plant new churches, and race realism is true, and we should always plant churches that teach only what is true.
But we would give a warning here, that a church attempting to unite on race realism alone, will fail. As we have shown, it is a matter that touches on points of religion, and is confirmed by passages of Scripture. But in itself, it is a matter largely natural, social, and political. By itself it is no foundation for church fellowship, though we are well aware that error in regard to race tends to the harm of the foundation, and to the fellowship built on it.
Therefore if such churches will be built, they must be built upon the only solid ground, God’s Bible and Christ’s Gospel, “the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:20). Many churches today that have compromised on race, did so only after they abandoned this foundation. Others who appear to keep the main things sound, but still are racially egalitarian, do threaten that foundation, because they cannot but corrupt the meaning of certain parts of Scripture. Moreover, even if a church is right on race, it still can be heretical by departing from the Word in other ways, which would bring shame both to the name of Christ, and to the cause of race realism.
So the dangers and difficulties are manifold. But from this we ought not lose heart. For our encouragement, we should remember we are not the first to have this struggle. In article 4 we cited the founding “Address to All the Churches” of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America. These godly men also were persecuted for race realism. They believed the African slavery practiced in their region was founded and maintained in part upon real racial difference, even real racial inequality, and they manfully defended their race realism, even while in part because of it they suffered men’s reproach, expulsion from their formerly united church, a bloody war, and sad defeat. But their labor was not at all in vain. The Southern Church was home to some of the greatest Christian ministers America has ever seen, men like Thornwell, Dabney, Girardeau, and Palmer, whose names are held in honor today even by those who oppose race realism. Their church maintained a faithful witness in its sound Protestant doctrine, simple purity of worship, and godly zeal for souls of every race. And even as the statues of the Southern heroes fall today, the literary monuments of the Southern Presbyterians remain, a testament to the possibility, and the beauty, of a race-realist Christian church.
May Christ himself build such a church today, and make us his willing servants in that building.
Articles in this Series
Christian Race Realism
1. Introduction
6. Application
7. Bibliography
Appendix
Letter to Friends in Inter-Racial Marriages
Dear Friends,
I’m writing because you may have heard, or may hear soon, about my views on race, and I wanted you to hear them directly from me.
In short, I am a “race realist.” This means I believe that though there is one human race, the more common use of the term race (to describe categories of ethnicity like Black, White, and Asian) speaks of something real. I affirm that the differences among such races are not only real, but largely permanent, and that races therefore are not interchangeable or replaceable.
Moreover, I gladly embrace and celebrate these realities as part of God’s wise design for mankind, per Acts 17:26, “…and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Compare the division of the nations in Genesis 9–11, and the summary of it given in Deuteronomy 32:8. Racial diversity is part of God’s good providence toward man, and ought to be honored and protected as such.
Now, I don’t think race is everything. Differences in religion, for example, have much more weight for this life and the next. But race is not therefore nothing. Recognizing racial difference has important practical consequences for this life. We ought to follow God’s design for mankind and not rashly mix what he has made distinct.
Among other things this means I believe inter-racial marriage is usually unwise. I recognize that you are in an inter-racial marriage, thus this letter. As you can testify, I’ve never disrespected you for this, or suggested that your marriage is invalid, though I have held these views for years. You freely chose to swear to a lawful covenant of marriage before God, and I intend with God to give all honor to that covenant, and to do all I can to help you gladly keep its terms.
However, this does not mean I think you made the best choice you could have. All recognize a key to marital success is compatibility, and that the challenges of having a good marriage, especially in our godless days, are so great, that we ought not add unnecessary burdens of our own accord.
I’m willing to weigh potential exceptions, but it seems in nearly every case, inter-racial marriage is such a burden. By it we intentionally choose to combine two races continents apart in origin, with significant differences in appearance, culture, language, even religion. By it we conjoin not just two persons, but two entire lineages, which in most cases to that point had been separate for thousands of years. Their families now by virtue of the choice their children made are compelled to interact, and every time they do, they must labor to cross all the barriers God himself set up between their races. In the case of international marriages this requires expensive and lengthy travel, not to mention passports, visas, customs, immigration, and so forth.
Think also of the consequences for the children. Children of parents different in race, by no choice of their own, come into the world with burdens on their back. Their parents were strangers to their spouse’s race, but at least belonged to their own. Yet the children don’t quite belong to any race at all. Their friends will be part of some distinct race (most all men are), but they will not. By appearance, by accent, by custom, and by parentage, they’ll stick out like sore thumbs, which no child wants to do.
Moreover, when as they mature they’ll make a choice as to which race they will identify most with. By God’s design this will usually be that of their father, but in reality this is not always so. Either option will bring difficulties, and naturally disappoint the parents whose race they did not choose. Think also then of their own marriages: they will be forced, again by no choice of their own, to be in some sort of inter-racial marriage themselves. But who will be willing to enter such a marriage with them? Most people, though they may fear saying it publicly, prefer to marry within their race. And if the children do find suitable spouses, their children will be born with burdens similar to what they bore, burdens that can only be totally removed by generations of intentional assimilation. And all these decades of burden will come upon dozens of offspring through the generations, simply because two of their forbears chose an inter-racial marriage.
I pass by medical issues more likely to occur among children of a mixed marriages, and reputable studies revealing how the above undesirable outcomes are not theoretical, but real, and common.
However, I must add that all these challenges are greatly compounded in our day by an undeniable political reality: inter-racial marriage is especially promoted by godless liberals who seek the ruin of the white Christian nations that have historically been their strongest opponents. In the United States, legal barriers to it which had been in place since the colonial era were not repealed in all the states until the sixties (a moral low-point in our history), and that only after a century of ceaseless racial agitation, even violent revolution.
I do not attribute to you such malicious politics. But still you ought to recognize, in most places in our country, within the memory of our grandparents, your marriage would not have been approved of socially. In many states it would have simply been illegal. Moreover, in that day the opposition to it would have come largely from Christians, and from both races involved, whereas the minority that approved it would have been, not without warrant, viewed as godless, rootless social activists.
Your marriage despite your best intentions has been a fruit and instrument of that activism. Consider the fact that the left intentionally used the legalizing of inter-racial marriage as a stepping stone to legalizing homosexual marriage. I know you want no part in that, and I grieve with you that evil men abuse your marriage for these evil ends. But this is our political reality. Moreover, this is why I am compelled, as a Christian in our present circumstances, to promote and defend truth on this matter publicly, no matter what cost may come to me for it.
Again, I do not say these things to invalidate your marriage. I love you, your spouse, and your children. I affirm your lawful marriage, and as I always have, I will continue to support you in it. I furthermore am happy to help you all I can in navigating whatever particular difficulties may come to you and to your children because of it. I remain your loyal friend and thank the Lord for you, and for your marriage.
Moreover, I trust that we confess together, whatever wisdom we may have lacked in our past choices, they are real and irreversible, and ultimately they happened by the immutable choice of God’s own all-wise providence, to which we all ought humbly to submit, and which always works for good to them that love him.
I fear some will try to misrepresent my views to you. You might have concerns or fears about them yourself. So it seemed good to be frank and open to you here. I’m happy to talk further if you desire.
Yours Sincerely in Christ,
Michael Spangler