By Davis Carlton

Charles Johnson, writing at the blog Reformed Theology Delatinized, has responded to Rev. Michael Spangler’s series on race realism posted at the Pactum Institute blog. Johnson concedes that Spangler is basically correct regarding the reality of race and that whites are being replaced in America, but that is the extent of his agreement. Johnson quotes Spangler’s saying that race realism is the belief that “race goes deep, extending to countless other realities, physical, cultural, intellectual, moral, and spiritual.” Johnson then argues that “A more historic name for this doctrine would be ‘racism.’” Johnson ignores the actual history of the frivolous accusation of “racism,” which sets the tone for the rest of his response.

Johnson then states that he will use the term “racialism” instead of “racism” which he states is “racial bigotry, unmotivated by theoretical considerations, which is what we usually have in mind today with the term ‘racism.’” I guess Michael Spangler should feel good that his “racial bigotry” is at least “motivated by theoretical considerations”? Besides this, no one actually uses or cares about Johnson’s definition of “racism.” As James Edwards has pointed out, “racism” is nothing more than a Marxist concept to cudgel white people. Needless to say, I don’t find Johnson’s critique of “racialism” to be convincing.

The first issue that Johnson takes with Spangler is that he uses Biblical passages that are indicative rather than imperative. This means that these passages are merely describing what God has done, and are thus the way things are, not necessarily the way that they ought to be. There are a few passages that Johnson places in this category, such as Noah’s prophecy of his children and grandchildren in Genesis 9, the statement in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 that enumerates nations “after their generations,” and the Apostle Paul’s statement that God established the boundaries of the nations in Acts 17. Johnson argues that these passages are descriptive and that we cannot infer any moral imperatives from them.

There are several things that need to be said in response. First, Spangler is simply making a case for race realism, so he doesn’t have to draw out any particular moral implications for nationalism from this reality. Spangler marshals other Biblical passages to help make this case as he goes along. The passages listed above demonstrate the reality of race and ethnicity, so it’s easy to see why Spangler appeals to them. Even Johnson concedes that race is a reality at the beginning of his response. But the even bigger issue is this. Are these passages merely descriptive of what is without providing any reasonable implication about what ought to be? Here is Johnson’s argument:

“Moreover, seeking to draw any ethical principle against the mixing of the races because God’s providence has separated them is an exercise in confusing God’s decretive will with his preceptive will. God decreeing for something to come to pass in his divine providence is entirely different from him commanding men to perform it, and likewise, him inhibiting something is entirely different from him prohibiting it. A classic example from theology is that murder is forbidden in God’s preceptive will, or his law, (Ex. 20), yet God decreed by his providence that Christ should be murdered (Jn. 6:38). The complete homogenization of the nations and tribes of mankind has been impeded by God’s providence, when he confused mankind’s languages and scattered them (Gen. 11), but except in a handful of specific circumstances such as where the other person or group is unbelieving, no prohibition exists for acts that would lead to a manner of mixing of languages and cultures, like interracial marriage or races living alongside one another.”
That’s a lot to unpack. There are several problems here. First, while it is true that we must be careful to distinguish between what God providentially decrees and what he commands ought to happen, we cannot lump together all instances of what Johnson calls God’s decretive will. We must understand why God says He decreed something. The example that Johnson uses in making his distinction between God’s commandments and providential decree is that God prohibits murder while also decreeing that Christ would be murdered.

This raises the question, for what purpose did God decree that Christ would be murdered, and is this purpose in any way analogous to God’s establishment of distinct ethnic groups and races? The Bible abundantly testifies that the reason for the Father delivering up His Son was for the purpose of the salvation of the world. This did not justify the participants in Christ’s murder or exonerate them in any way, and those opposed to the murder of an innocent man were in the right. Nevertheless God brought Christ’s crucifixion to pass in order to bring about a much greater good. So how is this analogous to God’s activity in bringing about different nations and ethnic groups within mankind?

I suppose that some might argue that national boundaries are the result of sinful hostilities, and that fighting against such hostilities is righteous. In this sense one of the purposes of national distinctions and boundaries might simply be for the purpose of minimizing unnecessary conflict. Of course, fighting against sinful hostility is righteous, but this is not the same as suggesting that national or ethnic boundaries would disappear as a result. Borders don’t disappear during peacetime in the same way that property boundaries don’t magically disappear between friendly neighbors.

There is also no reason to believe that national borders and ethnic distinctions only exist because of sinful hostility. The Apostle Paul specifically said that the bounds between the nations (ethnic groups) were erected so that the nations would grope for God and find Him (Acts 17:26-27). Likewise we read that all nations that God created will worship Him (Psalm 86:9). This suggests something more positive than God allowing the murder of Jesus in order to bring about salvation. This suggests that the fact that distinct nations exist is a good in and of itself, rather than something that God merely allows to bring about some greater good. Thus the comparison of national boundaries to murder isn’t a fitting one.

We can see this demonstrated in the way that the Bible describes blessings and curses. In Psalms 127 and 128 we are told that children are a heritage and a blessing. While this is descriptive, it cannot be written off as merely descriptive, because what it is describing is a major means of divine blessing. However, Rev. Kingsbury of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has tried to argue just that: “Interestingly, no text in Scripture teaches that bearing children is a universal purpose of marriage, that is, something which should characterize every marriage. While Psalms 127 and 128, among other passages, say children are a blessing, they do not say every marriage ought to produce children.”

Pastor Bret McAtee has already thoroughly responded to Kingsbury’s arguments, but suffice it to say that it is foolish for Christians to specifically avoid pursuing what God identifies as a blessing. While it is true that not everyone will be married, and some marriages won’t produce children, it is obvious from passages like the Psalms mentioned above that Christian marriages should pursue and expect children. The same is true for the passages that describe the goodness of and God’s purposes for the existence of distinct nations. These cannot be written off as merely descriptive of what Johnson calls God’s “decretive will” as though distinct nations are in the same category of all the evils committed throughout history.

We can also see that distinct nations are God’s will from the direct commandments that speak directly to the issue of national identity. The description of the blessing of children from Psalms 127 and 128 can be paired with the commandment in the Dominion Mandate to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28, cf. 9:7, 35:11). In the same way, the blessing of having distinct nations can be paired with laws that protect national identity from being swallowed up into a giant globalist empire. There are many of these laws that are referenced by Spangler that Johnson comments on that I plan on responding to soon. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to read Michael Spangler’s own response to Johnson that he has already posted.