One of the trends that has become clear in recent years is that many in the evangelical elitist sphere either do not understand the realm of politics or they are merely abject liberals whose political philosophy is rooted in the Post War Consensus. The notion that nations are different and that these differences have manifest realities at scale stand juxtapose to the empty platitudes of “one race, human race.” The ARP led the way in Presbyterians enshrining racial egalitarianism as religious dogma. As written, their statement would castigate previous generations not inundated with progressive racial ideology regarding race while standing against clear historical fact that nations exercise superiority over other nations.
As the subsequent generations are living in declining nations, the increased diversity is being noticed as a primary cause to the decline. Systematically, Western nations have been attempting demographic replacement of their populations. Whether for greed or ideological malice, it matters not. In order to fight mass immigration, white people, who are the heritage of the West, need to collectivize and advance their own self-interests, which stands in contrast to the so-called Post War Consensus.
The opposition to racial groups collectivizing only applies to whites. The Shenvis and Berrys of the world will contend that blacks are an ethnic group with distinct interests, but neither of them would permit this standard to whites. Because all politics is identity politics, the West cannot be saved if it does not believe there is a distinction between peoples.
That said, one of the implications of the ARP statement is that it would oppose calling nations superior, not only in their ability to exercise dominion over others or superior in achievement and culture, but on moral grounds. The question of whether nations can be morally superior to other nations is not a debate throughout Church history, but instead has been largely assumed.
Dr. Alan Strange, professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, gave a public seminar against the teachings of Wolfe’s book in which he intentionally misrepresents Wolfe’s ideas and invokes a variety of scare-words as rhetorical rebuttals. Probably the most persistent of the misrepresentations is Wolfe’s view of nations. As argued in The Case for Christian Nationalism, Wolfe presupposes that nations would naturally arisen in a prelapsarian world, that as populations grew and filled the earth, there would have been societies developed, which would require hierarchies to organize said societies. Wolfe asserts that there would have arisen a cultural diversity in a prelapsarian world, perhaps including distinct languages or dialects, to which he concludes that the “nation, therefore, is natural to man as man, and the matured earth would be a multiplicity of nations” (80).
Strange misrepresents Wolfe in stating that Wolfe argues in the book that Nations were unaffected by the Fall or that the sinful manifestations of nations that persist would have been manifest in a prelapsarian world. It is one thing to argue that nations/governments exist as a result of the Fall, which appears to be Strange’s position; however, it is dishonest to suggest that Wolfe’s position (or Calvin/Aquinas etc. who share his presupposition) would argue that sin did not affect the ontology of the nation. Both are valid positions that can be subject to an honest debate, but only between honest actors.
A similar example is where feminists will reject the notion of Patriarchy at Creation, denying that Adam was head over Eve; instead, they argue that Patriarchy was the result of the Fall, which is a false teaching. Since hierarchy did exist ontologically, the Nation being an outgrowth of patrilineal hierarchy is a reasonable position.
One of the clips that the seminary promoted of Dr. Strange asks the question, “Are some nations better than others?”
What about the whole notion that nations think themselves better than the other nations? Do you think that’s not a result of sin? That ethnic groups think they’re not superior to other ethnic groups? Because they’re not! We’re all made in the image of God. Somebody’s not better than the other. When Paul stood at the Areopagus and he said he made all nations of one blood, do you think the Greeks were standing there saying, yes, they were like, you shut up. We’re Greeks. We’re not like those Africans. Did they think that? Oh, we know they thought…
[Not featured in the above clip]
This notion that that one is better than another contributes to pride hubris and the like. This is common among all mankind in accordance with their sinful human nature. We see in Israel, notice this. We see in Israel the always unseemly and mistaken notion that God’s choice of them
The Greeks did believe they were superior, and not without good reason, since they Hellenized the world. The Scriptures were written in Greek because of their hegemony. Though the professor could not name Aristotle, pretty much all political thought stems from his Politics wherein the philosopher said that a Greek is noble wherever he goes while a barbarian (non-Greek) is noble only in his homeland. That said, Paul received a mixed reception at the Areopagus, and they did not sneer him because he asserted that “all nations are of one blood” but specifically because he taught the “resurrection of the dead” (Acts 17:32).
As for the Israelites, if anything, they felt inferior to the other nations and thus led themselves astray in pursuit of foreign Gods. It makes no sense for a group that presupposes its own superiority to chase after the gods of those they perceive to be their inferiors. Another obvious proof text is their desire for a king to “be like the other nations” is an admission that they feel their nation is inferior because it is without a king. The issue is not whether they perceived themselves to be morally superior, but that they often failed to be morally superior. Only in the New Testament is there a superiority complex of the Pharisees and Sadducees, though it manifested in both categories of race and class. Though they might have felt superior to the Samaritan, their exercise of superiority over the poor Jew, whom they burdened in their teachings, was far more regular in application.
The problem with denying the moral superiority of nations is that the same proponents will contend that cultures can be superior or inferior to one another. Culture is an outgrowth of an ethnos of people, which is partially influenced by genetics. The fact that Western Europe spent centuries executing a small percentage of its population for crimes led to a reduction in violence in later centuries, suggesting that violent tendencies are not only genetic but that cultures can improve over time. Cultures with tendencies towards unabated violent criminality are morally inferior to those that deal with criminals. The migrant rapists from the Middle East and Northern Africa are morally inferior to the nations which they immigrated to. The fruit speaks for itself.
The ability of a nation to develop or remain undeveloped contains a moral component. Some nations can reach the moon while others never reached the second floor. The inability of certain groups to develop civilization is a moral failure on their part. Nations that practice ritual cannibalism are morally inferior to those who do not eat humans. Nations that burn wives upon the deaths of their husbands are morally inferior to a society which respects the dignity of women.
Just as one can reason that cultures are superior to one another, so does this apply to the realm of morality. At scale, a nation can be superior to another on moral grounds. This is not immutable but must be maintained, as many nations fall into decline and decadence. Even the notion of moral decline asserts that periods of morality are inferior or superior to other periods. America’s moral state has long been recognized to be in a state of decline, which would make the current generation morally inferior to their predecessors. It cannot be ignored that the importation of people from the Third World correlates with the moral decline of America and the West. Europe giving up her colonies led to their moral debasement and widespread violence. Apologizing for greatness is a symptom of the West’s moral decline.
Conclusion
Alan Strange employs a dishonest representation of Stephen Wolfe’s book to ultimately make the argument that nations are all equal, which is untrue and ahistoric despite his supposed knowledge of history. All of this is to deny that nations can be better than other nations. Really, they must make these arguments because the obvious implication that nations of European descent are superior to those not of European descent, and that cannot be allowed otherwise, people will reject multiculturalism, civil rights, and acknowledge that disparate outcomes between ethnicities are largely nature as opposed to nurture. The importance of Protestant Retrieval is that no longer does the Church have to receive its theology from people who are theologically inferior to their predecessors.
One Response
I’m reminded of the passage from Exodus regarding “sins of the father being visited on the 3rd and 4th generations”.