Within a span of less than 24 hours two terrorists coming from polar opposite political ideologies sought to terrorize the civilian population of the United States leaving 31 people dead and about 50 injured. The first terrorist to strike was a 21-year-old white supremacist named Patrick Crusius on Saturday just after 10:30 AM. He drove 10 hours from Allen, Texas to El Paso, Texas to carry out his heinous act of terrorism in Walmart where he opened fire with an AK-47 rifle killing 20 and wounding 26 more. Then in less than 24 hours after just 1 A.M. a 24-year-old Antifa supporter and self-proclaimed “leftist” named Connor Betts killed 9 people and wounded 27 others in Dayton, Ohio.
About 20 minutes before Patrick Crusius launched his terrorist attack on the Walmart in El Paso, Texas he posted his manifesto online as to why he was doing it. His reason could be summed in the following statement from his manifesto:
“This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion… makes no sense to keep on letting millions of illegal or legal immigrants flood into the United States, and to keep the tens of millions that are already here.”
Patrick Crusius purposefully targeted El Paso because he knew that it was 80 percent Hispanic and he wanted to make sure he killed Hispanics. As of this morning 2 more victims have died bringing the death toll to 22 people killed by this murderer.
He stated his dismay toward both Republicans and Democrats for their inaction.
In the manifesto he would later go on to say that it would be unrealistic to have all non-whites leave the United States and that instead the United States would have to eventually be broken up into different territories for the various races in order to keep unity among the various peoples.
But he was not consistent in his ideology either. He supported the concept of a universal basic income to offset people losing their jobs due to automation and he also spoke of his concerns over the destruction of the environment – both of which are leftist positions.
Heavy.com managed to scrape Connor Betts Twitter posts before Twitter took his account down. He made statements like the following:
“Kill every fascist”
“I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding”.
Betts was a Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders supporter as well.
Connor Betts agreed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s assessment of ice detention centers as “concentration camps” and stated “Cut the fences down. Slice ICE tires. Throw bolt cutters over the fences”.
The commonality we can see in both these cases is that both these killers sought to terrorize the citizens of the United States to bring attention to their political views and causes.
In that article I gave the following definition of Terrorism:
“Terrorism is when a person or group of persons attempts to bring about a desired political or social change by specifically targeting the civilian population of the region in which they hope to bring about a change. Terrorists attempt to “terrorize” the civilian population into pressuring their political leaders to make the changes they want.
It needs to be made clear that terrorism is not simply a person or group killing people in order to scare others into bowing to their demands. Terrorism also occurs in the form the threats or intimidation of the demands of certain group are not met.
So, for example – if a crowd of people march through the street peacefully advocating for societal or political changes this is not terrorism. However, if this same crowd marches through the street advocating for using intimidation or violence to force society to embrace their views this would be a form of terrorism. If a group of protestors actually engages in physical violence and intimidation including burning down buildings and looting this is most definitely a form terrorism.”
What Patrick Crusius and Connor Betts did fits this definition to a tee.
I will restate here exactly what I said after Charlottesville in 2017:
While the right of self-defense is Biblical – terrorism is NEVER right. It is never right to use various means to terrorize the civilian population of any region to try and pressure the people to pressure their leaders to change laws and policies to please a certain group.
Socialism, Capitalism, Nationalism, Violent Video Games and Guns Are Not the Cause of Terrorism
We have heard already and will continue to hear in the days and weeks to come that Donald Trump and anyone who believes that the people of United States have a right to determine who comes into their country are the cause of the massacre which occurred in El Paso, Texas on Saturday. We will also hear how gun rights and violent video games caused this massacre as well.
But the fact is we who believe in the concepts of nationalism and national sovereignty and the right to keep and bear arms are no more responsible for what happened in El Paso than Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were responsible for what occurred in Dayton, Ohio.
So, what caused these deaths in both El Paso and Dayton? Two things.
The first is Mental instability.A mentally stable person does not go out and shoot up a crown of innocent people whether to make a political point or just make a name for himself.
The second is the ideologies of White Supremacists and Antifa. Both groups believe in using violence to achieve their political goals. White Supremacist groups believe in using violence in an attempt to intimidate minorities in America. Antifa believes in using violence to silence nationalists, conservatives and any other group which does not support their globalist and socialist goals.
My Position on The Issue of Race
Anyone who has read this blog for a long length of time knows that I have written extensively on the topic of race. We as Christians cannot avoid it and we cannot sweep it under the rug.
“The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity.Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…
Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.”
I believe, like nations of the past that attempted to “unite diverse tribes” we too have “fared poorly”. We had a civil war and multiple riots and societal upheavals over the issue of race in America.
Whites have attacked Blacks and Hispanics, and Black and Hispanics have attacked Whites for many years. And it is absolutely true that racially based crimes have spiked in recent years and the vast majority of those has been committed by whites against racial minorities.
But the question is this, is this because of Donald Trump or something else?
In High schools, colleges and universities Whites are attacked under the guise of “Whiteness” programs.
And let us not forget the targeted assassinations of predominately white police officers in 2016.
All of these kinds of events in recent years are like kindling in the furnace of White Supremist groups and this why the attacks from these groups have increased. Again, it must be stated that these things I have just mentioned do NOT justify such attacks or make them right in anyway.
It has been wisely said that life is 10 percent, what happens to you and 90 percent how you react to it. Some Whites react to the attacks on Whites, “Whiteness”, “White Privilege” and proclamations of the coming demise of the White majority in America with jubilee and celebration. Others like White Supremacist groups lash out in violence. The overwhelming majority of Whites remain silent for fear of being associated with violent White supremacist groups. And a small minority of Whites, of whom I am one, speak out against both White supremacists as well as those who attack Whites simply for not being ashamed of their ancestry or wanting their ethnicity to continue to thrive in America.
Think about this for a minute. If any white person expresses even the least concern about their shrinking numbers in America, or if a white person encourages other people to have more children because their fertility rates have been lower – that person is denounced as a White Supremacist.
In other words, the only way to not be called a White supremacist today is if you are totally cool with the White population in America shrinking and you vehemently condemn “whiteness” and “white privilege”.
Do I think like White Supremacists and White Nationalists that Americans of northern European decent have some divine right from God to be the majority ethnic group in America? Of course not!
But then let’s ask another question. While no group has some divine right on America, does every ethnic group in America have the right to encourage its ethnicity to grow by having more children? The answer is YES. Yet in America every ethnic group in America can try to encourage its growth except whites. For whites to do so is racist and evil. There is no logic in such condemnation.
And this also goes to political concerns. It is a well-known fact that various ethnic groups tend to cluster in the neighborhoods in which they choose to live, the people whom they choose to date and marry, the churches they attend and even which political party they vote for. Even in large liberal cities which are by far the most multiracial areas, if you go down to the neighborhood level there is almost always a majority race in that neighborhood. If you don’t believe me just check out all these facts I have listed from multiple university and other sources that studied racial segregation as it still exists in America today.
In other words, most people marry someone of their own race, most people attend a church whose overwhelming majority is their race, most people tend to live in neighborhoods that are mostly their own race and when people vote they tend to vote with their race.
And in America most minority groups tend to vote as a block for liberal, progressive and big government policies while a large majority of whites tend to vote for more conservative policies.
So, the racial divide is very much a political ideology divide as well.
But now I want to relate this back to Patrick Crusius and the terrorist act he committed in El Paso on Saturday. Again, whether we are White, Conservative, Republican, Nationalist, 2nd Amendment believers or if we share any societal or political concerns that this madman had this does not mean our concerns are evil because this man committed an evil act based on some of those same concerns.
We can be ashamed of what he did without be ashamed what we believe and who we are.
In Ecclesiastes 3:4 the Bible tells us that there is “A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance”. We should weep and mourn for those who lost loved ones in both these heinous terrorist acts.
We as Bible believing Christians should absolutely support our government in what will be a greatly increased battle against White supremacists who would seek to commit heinous acts of terrorism like Patrick Crusius did this last Saturday.
And that means as Whites, as Conservatives, as Republicans and as Nationalists if we hear someone threatening to commit an act of terror, we should immediately report it to the police or FBI. And we can only hope that those on the left will report suspected Antifa terrorists and that the FBI will pursue Antifa terrorists like Connor Betts with the same vigor.
Is White Christianity in America dying? That is what many in our American media would have us to believe.
In July of 2016, Robert P. Jones released his book “The End of White Christian America”. George Soros’s Open Society Foundation hosted one of the book’s first discussion groups and book signing events a couple weeks after it came out.
Robert Jones is also the founder and CEO of The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). PRRI claims to be a nonpartisan polling organization but it is anything but that. Their who’s who list of globalists and left wing supporters like George Soros should be a huge red flag for anyone reading their polls.
What you will discover when you look at PRRI’s polling and commentary is that they are trying to persuade conservative Christians to give up their conservative positions on social issues like opposition to fluid gender roles, transgenderism, homosexuality and abortion just to name a few areas. In the area of immigration, they greatly push globalism and multiculturalism and their enemies are populists or nationalists whether they be Christian or non-Christian.
Pretty much all liberal Christian groups and publications use PRRI’s polling because it supports both the secular and Christian liberal agenda’s which are closely aligned.
If you want to get polling from a truly independent source, I would recommend Pew Research who strictly forbids all of their executives and poll commentators from any involvement in the political arena. They truly seek to do objective polling and present objective commentary without trying to sway public opinion one way or the other.
A great summary of Robert Jones’s positions is found in a Washington Post interview by John Sides entitled “Why Christian American is dying”.
The False “Lower Religious Affiliation by Age” Argument
In the beginning of his interview Mr. Jones makes the argument that lower numbers of Whites Christians in the younger ages is an indicator of the coming death of White Christianity in America. He references a chart from his book showing this when he states:
“Like an archaeological excavation, the chart sorts Americans by religious affiliation and race, stratified by age. It shows the decline of white Christians among each successive generation.
Today, young adults ages 18 to 29 are less than half as likely to be white Christians as seniors age 65 and older. Nearly 7 in 10 American seniors (67 percent) are white Christians, compared to fewer than 3 in 10 (29 percent) young adults.” 
There are two problems with Jones’s argument on this point. The first problem is that if you dig into his definition here he is talking about church attendance. There are many people who are true believing Christians that for various reasons have not attended Church in many years. The second problem and really the larger problem is his glaring omission of a fact he knows well.
This difference between age groups and church attendance (not faith) has been around since the 1970s. This is NOT something new. In an article from Pew Research entitled “Why do levels of religious observance vary by age and country?” they make the following observation about age and church attendance:
“Looking at four age groups (rather than two) reveals even more clearly that religious service attendance and age have not always correlated perfectly in the United States. From the early 1940s through the 1960s, people in their 40s and 50s reported attending at least as frequently as those over 60. And adults in their 30s saw a spike in attendance in the late 1950s, briefly matching or exceeding the other groups. By the mid-1970s, the age groups had split into the pattern seen today: Older adults are more religiously committed than younger adults.” 
So, the pattern of younger people not attending church and then as they get older attending church has been the pattern for the last half century. As people get married, have children and grow older they return with their families to church. Nothing new here and certainly not evidence for the demise of White Christianity in America.
I always find it humorous when I am watching liberal TV news and read liberal articles and they point to the liberal views of young people as an indicator of where elections and the culture is heading. What they neglect to tell their viewers and readers is that many polls and studies show that as people age they generally get more conservative. That is why there is always consistently a larger percentage of conservatives among middle age and older people than younger.
Before I present and answer more of Mr. Jones’s supposed evidence for the death of White Christianity in America we need to define the major categories of Christianity in America.
Christian Sectarianism is as American as Apple Pie
In a Washington Examiner article entitled “Is the end of white Christian America a good thing?” Michael Barone wrote:
“Sectarianism is as American as apple pie. We have not only had black churches, we have had separate Northern and Southern churches. The American Catholic Church, run by Irish-Americans for most of its history, has had identifiable Italian and Polish parishes. It’s nice if people of different ethnic or racial heritage decide to participate in a congregation together. But it doesn’t seem likely to be a major driver of increased church membership.” 
I would go a step further and say sectarianism is not just the norm for America, but it has always been the norm for Christianity throughout the world. During the early church bishops ruled over individual churches. Eventually metropolitan bishops consolidated power over all the local bishops and churches in a given city area. There are letters during this early church period of bishops arguing with one another on various doctrines and applications of the Scriptures. The point is that sectarianism was the norm of the early church.
After the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 312 A.D. he not only sought to reunite the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, but he also helped the Christian Bishops at Rome to consolidate religious power over all the Christian churches in the empire. Rome’s hold on power over the Christian churches would only last until 1054 A.D. when the Eastern Byzantine Christians split from Rome to form what would later be known as the Orthodox Church. Less than 500 years after that split, in 1517, the Catholic Church of Rome would experience another great division which started with a German Catholic Monk named Martin Luther. This division would become known as the Protestant reformation.
The Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.
Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation but not the only guide for faith and practice. Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that formed from them believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.
Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.
The Differences between Evangelical, Mainline and Black Protestants
Pew Research when compiling its 2014 “Religious Landscape Study” broke up Protestants into three main groups based on a combination of culture and beliefs. These three groups were Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black. When PRRI did it’s study they purposefully rejected these three groupings and instead only had Evangelical and Mainline. It added all black churches into the Evangelical category. Then it divided evangelicals back out into three categories of “White evangelical, White mainline and Black Protestant”. Yes, it was definitely some fuzzy math.
This recategorization is alluded to in the ABC News Blog “FiveThirtyEight.com”. In an article entitled “How Trump And Race Are Splitting Evangelicals” Perry Bacon Jr. and Amelia Thomson-Deveaux wrote:
“Two factors appear to be driving this divide. First, the number of white evangelicals is in decline in America at the same time that the evangelical population is becoming more racially diverse. According to 2016 data from the Public Religion Research Institute, about 64 percent of evangelicals are non-Hispanic white, compared to about 68 percent in 2006. [you have to click the x here to see the note]
PRRI defines “evangelicals” as respondents who identify as Protestant and evangelical or born-again. Other pollsters — in particular, the Pew Religious Landscape Survey, though not all Pew surveys — define “evangelical” by denomination and exclude some historically black denominations, which results in a higher share of white evangelicals. The 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Survey, for example, suggested that about 75 of evangelicals are white, a higher number than PRRI’s finding, but still a drop from 81 percent in 2007.” 
Robert Jones has attempted to sell a narrative for some time that Black Protestant and Evangelical churches are the same group of Protestants. That has NEVER historically been the case as I will show later in this article. In an article he wrote for the Atlantic in 2014 entitled “White Christmas, Black Christmas” Jones states:
“Black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants are the two groups with the highest church-attendance rates in the country. While less than four in 10 (38 percent) Americans overall report attending religious services weekly or more often, 58 percent of white evangelical Protestants and 55 percent of black Protestants attend church at least weekly. White evangelical Protestants and black Protestants also share a particularly literal approach to the Bible. Among the general public, approximately one-third (35 percent) believe the Bible is the literal word of God, but about six in 10 white evangelical Protestants (61 percent) and black Protestants (57 percent) hold a literal view of the Bible. These two groups also share a belief in a personal God, an emphasis on individual salvation, and religious architecture that emphasizes the centrality of the pulpit over the altar.” 
Jones is right that Black Protestants and White Evangelicals have much in common. White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning the mainline Protestants who reject the authority of the Bible or the literal interpretation of it. White Evangelicals and Black Protestants would stand side by side in condemning mainline Protestant churches who allow homosexual members and even homosexual clergy.
However there still is a core and fundamental divide between Black Protestants and White Evangelicals and that divide is and has always been throughout American history what we call today social justice, which is simply another name for socialism.
White Evangelical Opposition to Socialism and Social Justice
As I have previously said, Robert Jones has tried to paint a false narrative that Black Protestants and White evangelicals are the same Protestant group. But the history of the evangelical movement proves this narrative to be false.
When the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) was founded in 1942 there were no African American denominations or churches that were a part of it. It was completely comprised of churches that were predominantly white and held to a literal view of the Bible.
There was probably no better representation of a 20th century White Evangelicalism than Billy Graham who passed away earlier this year at the age of 99. Unfortunately, the version of Billy Graham that we saw in his last couple decades bore little resemblance to the man he once was. If you were to go to BillyGraham.org today and look up “racism” in search of his quotes and sermons you will find the “edited for modern viewers” presentation of Billy Graham. You will find stories of how he befriended Martin Luther King and even paid to bail him out of jail. You will find him calling racism evil and wicked. You will hear how he integrated his rallies.
But after his death there were several publications that reminded us (albeit in a negative and condescending way) that the sweet and non-political Billy Graham most people had come to know today was not the Billy Graham of earlier years.
A CNN article entitled “Where Billy Graham ‘missed the mark’” recounts this story about Billy Graham:
“…Graham personally lobbied President Dwight D. Eisenhower to ignore the racial crisis in the South, that he told a white audience in Charlotte in 1958 that demonic hordes were the real source behind the country’s racial problems, and that he wrote a 1960 article for U.S. News and World Report tacitly defending Southern resistance to integration.
“The Bible also recognizes that each individual has the right to choose his own friendships and social relationships,” Graham wrote. “I am convinced that forced integration will never work. You cannot make two races love each other and accept each other at the point of bayonets.” 
Matthew Avery Sutton, wrote the following in an article for the Guardian entitled “Billy Graham was on the wrong side of history”:
“For Graham, the Bible had a clear message for Christians living in what he believed were humans’ last days on earth. Individuals alone can achieve salvation; governments cannot. Conversions change behaviors; federal policies do not…
In the late 1950s, Graham integrated his revivals and seemed to support the burgeoning civil rights movement. This is the Graham most Americans remember… Within days of the publication of King’s famous 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Graham told reporters that the Baptist minister should “put the brakes on a little bit”.
He criticized civil rights activists for focusing on changing laws rather than hearts…
Graham praised the wisdom of young people who rejected the federal government as a tool for rectifying injustices.
“These young people don’t put much stock in the old slogans of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the Great Society,” he said. “They believe that utopia will arrive only when Jesus returns. Thus these young people are on sound Biblical ground.
For six decades, Graham taught Americans that the federal government could not be an instrument of God to bring about justice, not on race matters and not on other significant issues…
Graham came of age during Franklin Roosevelt’s vast expansion of government power. But rather than join with social gospel advocates like Roosevelt’s aide Harry Hopkins in promoting the creation of a welfare state to serve the needy, the future evangelist was more influenced by apocalypse-obsessed, fundamentalist rabble rousers who rejected New Deal liberalism.” 
So, while it is true that Billy Graham even in his early years spoke out against racial hatred you will also find that he was equally against communism, socialism, the New Deal, the Great society and Martin Luther King’s social gospel which simply tried to interweave socialism into the Gospel.
It is also important to point out that Billy Graham was NOT the originator of these political positions of White Evangelicals, but rather he became their national spokesperson.
Graham believed “the race question” and the Gospel should never be confused. They were separate issues for him. He believed that Martin Luther King and many other Christian ministers had mistakenly made racial and economic equality a core tenant of the Gospel. For Graham the Gospel was simple – it was the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And nothing should be added to it or taken away from it.
It is for all these reasons I have just mentioned that White Evangelicals tend to vote against socialist policies and for the most conservative candidates. And it is for these same reasons that most blacks (including Black Protestants), following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King, tend to vote for socialist policies including social and economic engineering programs.
This is why it is an utter mistake in polling data conclusions or political considerations to lump in Black Protestants with Evangelicals. While they agree in principle on taking the Bible literally they very much disagree on their interpretation and application of the Bible especially as it relates to what the Gospel is and what government should or should not do.
American Churches Are Still Dominated by Whites or Blacks
Now let’s bring this full circle back to Pew Research’s breakdown of Protestants into the three categories of Evangelical, Mainline and Historically Black – they were absolutely right to do this as these are three separate and distinct groups of Christians in America with VERY different cultural and political beliefs.
The chart I have made below is based off table data from Pew Research’s 2014 “Religious Landscapes” Study specifically from their section entitled “Chapter 3: Demographic Profiles of Religious Groups” :
I know of Protestant churches in my area that are Korean Churches, Chinese Churches or even Arab Churches. The Baptist Church I attend helped a local Arab Baptist Church put on a vacation Bible school program a few years back. But the reality is the vast majority of Protestant churches in America are dominated by one of two races – White or Black with other ethnic groups usually comprising minorities in one of these two types of churches. And of these two racially dominant churches the vast majority are white.
Are Protestants really in a freefall decline?
Now that we have gone over the major categories of Christianity and then Protestant Christianity in America we can continue on to Mr. Jones next supposed evidence for the death of White Christian America.
In his interview with Washington Post writer John Sides, Mr. Jones goes on to speak about the declining numbers of White Protestants in America:
“Up until about a decade ago, most of the decline among white Protestants was confined to mainline Protestants, such as Episcopalians, United Methodists, or Presbyterians, who populate the more liberal branch of the white Protestant family tree. The mainline numbers dropped earlier and more sharply — from 24 percent of the population in 1988 to 14 percent in 2012, at which time their numbers generally stabilized.
But over the last decade, we have seen marked decline among white evangelical Protestants, the more conservative part of the white Protestant family.White evangelical Protestants comprised 22 percent of the population in 1988 and still commanded 21 percent of the population in 2008, but their share of the religious market had slipped to 18 percent at the time the book went to press, and our latest 2015 numbers show an additional one-percentage-point slip to 17 percent.” 
Let’s now compare what Pew Research stated about White Evangelicals in the 1987 to 2006-time frame:
“The rising political clout of evangelical Christians is not the result of growth in their numbers but rather of their increasing cohesiveness as a key element of the Republican Party. The proportion of the population composed of white evangelicals has changed very little (19% in 1987; 22% now) and what growth there was occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s.” 
In 2015 Pew made this statement as to the current population percentage of White Evangelicals:
“To look at it another way, white evangelical Protestants now make up nearlyone-in-five (19%) of the nation’s adult population, while evangelical members of other racial and ethnic groups make up roughly another 6% of U.S. adults. Hispanics are the largest group among non-white evangelicals.” 
So, what is the major difference between the different pictures of these same time periods painted by PRRI and the Pew Research Center?
The difference is that PRRI attempts to paint a picture that White Evangelicals have not been below 20 percent from the 1980’s on and that now they are consistently losing ground over the last decade.
On the other hand, the Pew Research center analysis shows that White Evangelicals have actually had their numbers fluctuate between the late teens and early twenty percentage rates since the 1980s. Again, like the argument of lower church attendance by the younger and higher by the older, this pattern is nothing new. If anything, it shows a consistent level of White Evangelicals over the past several decades.
Evangelicals are Actually Gaining While Other Christian Groups are Shrinking
Now we get into the data that should be an encouragement to White Evangelical Christians about our future in this country. Pew made this general observation of evangelical Protestants (who are predominately white as we have previously shown):
“One big reason evangelical Protestants have not declined at the same rate as other major Christian groups is that they are gaining new converts at a greater rate than they are losing people who were raised in the tradition.While 8.4% of Americans were raised as evangelicals and have since left evangelicalism for another faith (or no faith), even more U.S. adults (9.8%) were raised in another faith (or without a religious affiliation) and have since become evangelicals.
The same cannot be said for Catholics and mainline Protestants. For instance, a significant share of all American adults – 12.9% – are former Catholics, while only 2% have converted to Catholicism after being raised outside the Catholic Church. And 10.4% of the nation’s population is made up of former mainline Protestants, while only 6.1% have joined mainline churches after being raised in another tradition.” 
These numbers expose the false narrative of liberals today who say that evangelicalism is dying. Yes we in evangelical churches have shed the unfaithful and nonbelievers from our midst at a rate just over 8 percent. But we are gaining those seeking a true and vibrant faith at almost a 10 percent rate!
Why Evangelicals Are Growing While Other Christian Groups Shrink
There is a fantastic article that Glen Stanton wrote in early 2018 for the Federalist entitled “New Harvard Research Says U.S. Christianity Is Not Shrinking, But Growing Stronger”. Below are some key observations he makes from the Harvard study:
“New research published late last year by scholars at Harvard University and Indiana University Bloomington is just the latest to reveal the myth. This research questioned the “secularization thesis,” which holds that the United States is following most advanced industrial nations in the death of their once vibrant faith culture. Churches becoming mere landmarks, dance halls, boutique hotels, museums, and all that.
Not only did their examination find no support for this secularization in terms of actual practice and belief, the researchers proclaim that religion continues to enjoy “persistent and exceptional intensity” in America. These researchers hold our nation “remains an exceptional outlier and potential counter example to the secularization thesis…
The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent…
When the so-called “progressive” churches question the historicity of Jesus, deny the reality of sin, support abortion, ordain clergy in same-sex relationships and perform their marriages, people desiring real Christianity head elsewhere. Fact: evangelical churches gain five new congregants exiled from the liberal churches for every one they lose for any reason. They also do a better job of retaining believers from childhood to adulthood than do mainline churches…” 
True believers in Christ want the real thing. If someone just wants to go to a social club or be part of an organization that fights for things like “social justice” they don’t need a church for that. They can go join some secular political group. I am not saying there are not true believers who believe that social justice initiatives should be a part of what the church does. I have met in person and online many people who I think are true believers who think this way, but I simply disagree with them. What I am saying is that if your main point for attending church is to talk about and fight for social justice initiatives you don’t need a church for that and that is why many liberal protestant churches are bleeding members.
But if what someone is looking for in a Christian Church a true intense faith and a group of like-minded people who believe in a foundation for morality that stands the test of time in the Bible then they will be drawn to evangelical Christian Churches.
Conservative Christians Have More Children Than Other Groups
At the end of his article in the Federalist, Glen Stanton talks about the reason that fundamentalist Christians will eventually outnumber secularists:
“There is another factor at work here beyond orthodox belief. The University of London’s Eric Kaufmann explains in his important book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” (he says yes) that the sustaining vitality, and even significant per capita growth, of serious Christian belief is as firmly rooted in fertility as it is in faithful teaching and evangelism. Globally, he says that the more robust baby-making practices of orthodox Jews and Christians, as opposed to the baby-limiting practices of liberals, create many more seriously religious people than a secular agenda can keep up with.” 
Now I want to add a point of clarification here.
The Fact is that Eric Kaufmann’s book “Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?” is not simply about the reality that Christian fundamentalists are out-breeding secularists, but that all fundamentalists including Jews and Muslims are doing the same.
Below are a few questions that Eric Kaufmann was asked on an Atheist Blog about his thesis that Fundamentalists (Jews, Muslims and Christians) are about to retake the world from secularism:
“Why do fundamentalists have so many babies? Is this a relatively recent trend?”
Fundamentalists have large families because they believe in traditional gender roles, pronatalism (‘go forth and multiply’) and the subordination of individualism to the needs of the religious community.
Is it recent? Yes. First, when we all lived on the land, had no contraception and poor medicine and sanitation, most people — pious or otherwise — needed to have large families to survive. Now, family size has been freed from material constraints by urbanisation, modern medicine and contraception. So values come to the fore, and seculars express their values in smaller families while fundamentalists resist the trend. Fundamentalists don’t actually have more kids than they used to, but nearly all survive, and their relative advantage over others grows. It’s also worth mentioning that fundamentalism is a modern (post-1850 or post-1900) trend: a reaction against secularism or secularised (read: moderate) religion that has become more intense since the 1960s sexual revolution.”
Are fundamentalists concerned with the prospect of an overpopulated earth?
No — they feel God will provide and consider such concerns ‘anti-people’.
This trend of “quiverfull” Christian families and large Catholic families (to name a couple) has been around for a while… And yet, the percentages of non-religious people keep increasing according to recent polls. Does that contradict your thesis?
“No. The composition of a population is always a product of the relative pace of secularisation and religious growth. I use the analogy of a treadmill. Seculars are running on a treadmill that is tilting up and moving against them because of their low fertility and immigration. The religious — notably fundamentalists — are standing still or walking backward, but their treadmill is pushing them forward and tilting downhill. So, in Europe in the late twentieth century, seculars were running fast enough to overcome their demographic disadvantage and overtook the faithful. But today, secularism is slowing down outside England and Catholic Europe, and is facing a more difficult incline from the treadmill of demography. London is a good example: it is more religious now than 20 years ago despite secularisation, simply because of religious immigration and fertility.” 
Why This Should Matter to White Evangelicals
A lot of White Evangelicals reading this might be asking “What doe it matter if Whites continue to be a majority in evangelism or even in America? Isn’t it racism to even care if Whites are declining or not?”
I will probably get a lot of Christians who will email this verse to me:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28 (KJV)
This is actually the favorite verse of Christian egalitarians, Christian feminists and Christian socialists. These groups literally read the entire Bible through the lenses of this one verse instead of interpreting this passage within the entire witness of the Scriptures. So, if you, even as a conservative White Evangelical have been taught this verse means you are not allowed to care about your race in connection with their status in your country let me challenge you with a few passages you may not have heard before.
“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)
And the parallel passage to this is found in the book of Acts in the New Testament:
“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 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;”
Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)
My point in showing these passages is that it was God, and not sin that divided men by racial and national borders. Even Billy Graham mistakenly believed racial divisions were because of sin in the world but that is NOT what the Bible teaches.
Is racial hatred a result of sin? Absolutely. But racial preference is not. It is by the very design of God who made all men from the blood of Adam but also divided the sons of Adam.
But loving one’s own family and one’s own race and promoting the good of one’s own family and race is not equivalent to hatred for other races. Racial preference, preferring to marry someone of your race, preferring to live in a neighborhood that is predominantly your race or preferring to go to a church that is your race is not hatred for other races.
I don’t blame Blacks or Asians for wanting the best for their race. I don’t blame the Hispanics from central America who come from impoverished nations looking for a better life for themselves and their families.
But I can blame the whites of this country who wrongly bought kidnapped black slaves from Africa. I can blame the politicians who rejected Abraham Lincoln’s plan to send the freed blacks back to Africa to avoid future racial strife in America.
I can place the blame squarely on my ancestors in this nation who removed one of the first laws this nation passed, the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted American citizenship to “free white persons”. They literally took down America’s protection for ethnic homogeneity and opened us up to the racial strife we have seen over the past 150 years.
And I can place the blame on politicians today who refuse to protect the borders of this nation and those who say “I don’t believe in borders” or that borders are an “injustice”. I can also blame politicians who blame all the ills of minorities in this country on my race. And I can vote based on these principles as millions of whites did in the last election.
I have shown proof here from multiple sources the Robert Jones’s thesis that White Christianity in America is dying is false. White Evangelicals, the most conservative and Bible believing of all Christian sects, have hovered in the late teens and early 20 percent range of the population for the last half century. But as secularists begin to die off and leave little to no offspring behind fundamentalists White Evangelicals will experience a rebirth like nothing seen in the history of this country.
Even if secularists catch on to their own demise there is nothing they can do about it. Because their individualist selfish philosophy of life won’t allow them to fix the problem. They can’t have bigger families because for them it is a violation of their own “religion” of secularism to do so.
If you are a white evangelical, you have nothing to be ashamed of if you consider race in whom you date, where you go to church or where you live. And you certainly do not have to be ashamed of being white or for voting for white candidates for office or for voting for policies that favor your ethnic group.
A North Carolina African-American woman was outraged by the fact that her 2nd grader came home with a sheet talking about “white privilege”. The paper caused her second grader to ask his mother whether white people “are better” than him. She was angry because she thought as an African-American that it was her place to teach her son about race relations and not the schools. You can find out more about this story here.
Below are statistics that the paper stated regarding “White Privilege” in America:
“Governors: 96% white
Top military advisers: 100% white
President and vice president: 100% white
Current POTUS cabinet: 91% white
People who decide which TV shows we see: 93% white
People who decide which books we read: 90% white
People who decide which news is covered: 85% white
People who decide which music is produced: 95% white
Teachers: 83% white”
Now let’s just take for granted that these numbers regarding white representation in these categories are right. Next we will ask and answer a very important question – what percentage of the United States is White?
So according to the US Census Bureau 61 percent of the United States is White. Now the “white privilege” preachers will say “See that does not match up with the fact that 85 to 90 percent and sometimes 100 percent of these key positions in our society are occupied by whites!”
I could answer some of the disparity as to why Whites occupy a higher that their demographic size proportion of these positions with the following statistics:
Marriage matters. God’s design matters. When you follow God’s design that a man and woman come together in marriage and THEN have children and raise them together you will have more success.
Someone might say “Well maybe whites marry more than the other races in the United States – but they divorce just as much! So how do you answer that?” The statistics agree that relatively speaking divorce rates are the same amongst Blacks, Hispanics and whites as seen in the chart below:
First a note about divorce rates. It is true that officially speaking they are down from their high point of 50 percent in the 1980s. But the lowering divorce rate is deceptive in that the reason for lowering divorce rates is not because marriages are becoming more stable – it is because more people are NOT marrying and rather choosing to cohabitate instead.
Still it is accurate to say that roughly half of all marriages will end in divorce and that is a very sad state for the status of the family in our society. As I have noted many times one of the largest reasons for divorce is because of feminist ideology which has allowed women to be the primary instigators of divorce at around 70%.
But coming back to this issue of divorce and race – notice the orange bar in the chart above. While whites divorce at roughly the same rate as Blacks and Hispanics Whites remarrying at a significantly higher rate of 68.8 percent. What that means is Whites prefer marriage and they will most likely raise their children in a two parent home even if they divorce. Blacks and Hispanics tend to raise their children in single parent homes at a far higher rate than whites due to two factors – the first is they have children out of wedlock at much higher rates and secondly when they do marry and then divorce they are more likely to stay single after divorce.
I could list all kinds of statistics that show the relation between single parent families and poverty and crime but you can find those for yourselves on many government websites.
My point is it would be very easy to show that a sizeable part of the reason that Blacks and Hispanics do not hold positions of power at rates which match their demographic size in the United States is because of poor personal life decisions that affect their own lives and the lives of their children. It is not hatred toward Blacks or Hispanics to make such a statement – but rather it is simply a statement of fact.
But now let’s look at this from another angle. What if Blacks and Hispanics did not make these types of poor life decisions at much higher rates than whites? Would that completely account for the disparity in their representation in positions of power? The answer is no.
Ethnic Dominance Is a Human Trait Common to All Nations
Even though bad life decisions certainly can affect a minority ethnic group’s economic and power status within their countries it is not the only factor. There is a significant factor that has absolutely nothing to do with bad life decisions on the part of a particular minority ethnic group that affects their economic and power status in any given nation at that is Ethnic Dominance.
Human beings naturally cluster by ethnicity and they naturally prefer their own ethnicity to others. They consciously or unconsciously choose their own ethnicity in whom they marry, whom they associate with (like churches and other associations) and where they choose to live and they also chose societal policies which will benefit and preserve their ethnicity.
Now that does not mean there are not those that do in fact cross ethnic boundaries – there are people like this in every ethnic group. But these people are always a rarity. In other words is it not normal (the behavior of the majority in any group) for them to seek and prefer others outside their group.
In most countries whatever group occupies the ethnic majority tends to dominate that culture. There are some exceptions like in the case of South African Apartheid where a minority of Whites ruled over a nation that was primary Black.
When America was founded, the majority of its inhabitants where those of British decent (English, Welsh or Scottish) and that is why we speak English and many of our laws are based in English common law. Even with large migrations of Germans and other ethnicities into the United States during the 19th century the Germans and others were forced to adapt themselves to the ways of the British ethnicity that founded the country. But eventually these white Caucasians from various northern European nations intermarried to form a new white ethnicity here in America which continued to dominate the United States throughout the 20th century. And yes this white ethnicity still dominates the United States today in 2018.
Why Whites Don’t Have to Apologize for White Privilege
One of the common themes I talk about on this blog is human nature. Just because a certain behavior is normal for most humans does not make it right and just because something is not normal behavior for most humans does not make it wrong either.
As Christians we know that God created an original perfect human nature in the Garden of Eden. I have argued from the Scriptures on this site that God created a distinct masculine and feminine types of the human nature in many places on this blog. You can read my article “Is God more like man, more like woman, or a combination of the two?” for more on that subject. But my point here is that there was a perfect set of human natures that God designed and sin corrupted both of those natures in different ways.
But common to both the masculine and feminine human nature is our preference for our own ethnicity. The vast majority of both men and women tend to prefer their own ethnicity in most areas of life. So is this preference a sin?
The answer is while the Bible condemns all forms of hatred (and this would include racial) it does not condemn ethnic preference. See my article “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” for an in-depth look at the Scriptures on this subject. I argue the follow up article “Is Ethno-Nationalism a Sin against God or by His design?” that we can see in the Scriptures that while God created every nation from one blood – the blood of Adam – his ultimate plan was to divide humanity into nations by ethnic group. It is part of our God giving programing to prefer our own ethnicity and desire to see our ethnic group grow and prosper.
This is why I do not fault Blacks or Hispanics or Asians or any other ethnic group from for preferring their own and desiring to see their ethnic group grow and prosper. This is common to all humanity.
However while I understand their preference and their desire for the growth and prosperity of their own ethnic groups they must realize they are still in a culture that is ethnically dominated by Whites. That is going to change over the coming decades as we know that White births are shrinking and minority birth rates are rising.
But that change is not here yet.
I am a white person with English, German, Polish, Scottish, Irish, American Indian and Jewish ancestry. So you could say I am a majority White guy and no I don’t look Indian at all because that ancestry is really far back.
So because I share physical attributes with the dominant ethnic group in this country I may be treated differently and have some “privilege”. Do I need to apologize for that? No I do not. And neither does any other White person in America. Should we condemn racial hatred toward minorities as Christians? Absolutely. When we see true injustice committed against a minority based on their ethnicity should we condemn such actions? Yes.
But we as Whites should no more apologize for being white, or preferring our own than we should apologize for gravity.
It is the nature of how the world works and it is not a sin against God to behave in this way. As I have argued in other articles it is actually by God’s design. Also we as White parents need to start standing up to this White privilege garbage that is being shoved down the throats of our students at all levels of our education system.
Where Does This Leave Minorities Today?
I have said it multiples and I will say it again. The United States and Western nations in general decided to completely upend basic principles of civilization that worked for thousands of years. Nations were built around common ethnicity, common religion (which formed the foundation for cultural values) and common language. Families were built on patriarchy. These systems were built with the knowledge of how human nature actually works.
Communism failed because it rejected some facts about human nature. First it tried to take away religion from people like when Stalin had thousands of Russian Orthodox priests executed and killed many other millions of Christians. Secondly it tried to remove private ownership and competition from economies opting for equal outcomes for all its citizens. But what they did not realize is that human beings in general have a natural longing for belief in something greater than this world. We were built by God to seek out our creator. Secondly human beings only thrive when they can compete for and acquire private property. So when you take God and the ability to earn private property through competition out of the equation – you remove two of the most power forces that drive human beings.
In the same way, like Communism, our modern ideologies of multiracialism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism and feminism violate how we know human nature works. We have been artificially holding back the dam of the natural consequences of going against human nature for 150 years and eventually that dam will break and Western civilization will fall as a result.
So if you are a minority living in the United States you have some choices to make. You can accept the reality of racial preference and ethnic dominance and simply wait until you outbreed Whites to the point that you have just as many people or more. In that case you will be such a large voting block that you can vote people in of your ethnicity purely based on your numbers. You can choose to do your best and wait to have sex and children until you are married. You can choose to be a faithful spouse and good father or mother to your children. You can choose to educate yourself and live within your means. You can choose to set yourself apart by how hard you work and not blame everything that goes wrong in your life or every missed opportunity you have on “White privilege”.
Or you can take the same route that the Palestinians take with the Israelis.
In the Gaza strip where Hamas rules, they have presided over the complete failure of then electric grid as well as water and sewage infrastructure. They also have a 50 percent unemployment rate. Yet despite their utter failure to manage a society Hamas is highly popular with the people it rules. Do you know how they are so popular? The same way many minority leaders in the US are popular today. They blame others for the suffering of their people. They blame the Israelis. They blame the inability of Palestinians to return to lands they once held in what is now Israel.
In the same way we have minority leaders in the United States today preaching to young minorities that the White man is holding them back. If the White man would just give them their due then all their problems would be solved. But this is a lie minority friends. It is a bold faced lie.
Were the American founders wrong for not building in safe guards against secularism? Is there a way to have freedom of religion and at the same time guard against secularism? I believe the answer to both these questions is YES.
Nations from the dawn of human civilization have been built on three pillars much like the three legged stool I have pictured at the top of this article. These three pillars are a common religion, a common ethnicityand a common language. The more diversity you have in any of these three areas the weaker the unity of your nation becomes eventually leading to its collapse.
“The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity.
Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…
Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.
Vast ethnically diverse empires such as those of the Austro-Hungarians, the Ottomans, and the Soviets used deadly force to keep their bickering ethnic factions in line — and from killing each other.” 
In that article on ethno nationalism I argued that America’s change from laws protecting ethnic homogeneity (via the 1790 Naturalization Act) have led to a weakening of the American nation and fractures along ethnic lines. Why? Because even though we have tried to stamp out racial hatred (which is good thing) you cannot stamp out racial clustering in other words, racial preference. I showed statistics in my article “Is Self-Segregation a Sin?” that the vast majority of people of all ethnicities prefer to marry and live around people of their own ethnic group and this natural racial preference among human beings will inevitably lead to division in a nation.
So this common ethnicity, one of the three pillars that is crucial to any nation’s unity, has been badly weakened over the last century and it is continuing to degrade more each year.
In this article I want to talk about another pillar that is essential to national unity and that is common religion.
Why America’s Founding Fathers Wanted Freedom of Religion
The first amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The founding fathers gave us this to protect the people from state churches like the Anglican Church in England as well as state churches that existed in the American colonies.
One the greatest champions for religious freedom and separation of Church and State was a Baptist minister name John Leland(1754-1841). Hundreds of Baptist ministers had been imprisoned throughout the colonies for “disturbing the peace” or in other words not going along with the Anglican or Congregational state churches in various colonies. John Leland brought the plight of these Baptist ministers to the attention of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. James Madison had already heard of Baptist imprisonments in Virginia and was fighting for their freedom in there.
In order to secure the support of Leland and his many Baptist followers in Virginia, James Madison had to promise Leland that he would add specific protections for religious liberty to the new Constitution. This is why Leland is credited by many historians as the greatest influence of religious liberty on Madison and therefore the first amendment.
In 1790, a year before the first amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was ratified Leland wrote:
“The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be exploded forever. … Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians.” 
In 1791 Leland again wrote:
“Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions. Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it. When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more? A liberal man asks for nothing more of government.” 
And in 1804 Leland Wrote:
“Experience, the best teacher, has informed us, that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity, has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did.” 
Were America’s Founding Father’s Secularists?
While men like Thomas Jefferson and John Leland were champions of religious liberty they were not the advocates of a purely secular government as some of their statements have made them look. We need to look at their actions, not just their words to see what they truly meant.
In a speech he gave at at Beeson Divinity School on May 2nd, 2000 Richard Land made the following historical observation comparing Jefferson and Leland’s words on separation of church and state to their actions:
“Clearly, Jefferson saw no contradiction between his concept of church and state separation and having a gift personally presented to him at the White House with a promise of continued prayer by a prominent Baptist preacher on the morning of the very day he wrote to the Danbury Baptist ministers, and less than 48 hours later attending a Sunday morning worship service where that minister — John Leland — preached from the Speaker’s podium in the well of the U.S. House of Representatives” 
Were there secularists among the founders like Thomas Paine? Yes. But the truth is it can be easily proven by their diaries, personal letters and public statements that the vast majority of the founders were indeed Christians.
In response to Thomas Pain’s “Age of Reason” John Adams wrote:
“The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.” 
And Adams was not the only founder to attack Paine’s secularist views. Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, Charles Carrol, Patrick Henry, William Paterson and John Jay were amongst just a few of many founders who condemned Paine for his work. Zephaniah Swift stated at the time the following of Paine’s work:
“He has the impudence and effrontery to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 
The Error of the First Amendment
As much as Americans cherish the first amendment there was a fundamental flaw in design which came from men like John’s Leland’s “experience”. As we previously noted Leland said that “Experience, the best teacher” regarding his views of the separation of church and state and religious liberty. We also gave his statement that “…Let every man speak freely without fear–maintain the principles that he believes–worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing”.
The problem with this thinking, which also heavily influenced Madison, is that it opened the door open for secularism to poison American culture. If Leland could witness what happened over the next two centuries and “experiance” what happened as a result of having no protection for Christianity or Christian principles in this country I think he might have reconsidered his positions.
The first amendment – which was meant to protect freedom of religion and conscience was actually turned into a weapon by secularists to drive Christians from the public square.
After reading much about his life and what he fought for I can see where Leland was coming from. His intentions were good. I agree 100% with Leland that what the Anglican and Congregational state churches did to Baptists and other Christians was wrong. But Leland and the founding fathers he influenced went too far in the matter of religious liberty.
They could have put protections in for the freedom to practice the Christian faith according to one’s conscience and they could have clearly outlawed state churches.
They could have put moral laws in the Constitution straight from the Scriptures like do not steal, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not commit fornication as well as protections for family rights and male headship while protecting the right of Christian churches to assemble and worship as they pleased.
Instead they set up a system of government that allowed for secularism, atheism and religious pluralism to eventually erode the unity of the nation. This erosion of common religion among Americans will eventually lead to the end of the great experiment the founders began more than two centuries ago.
The Founding Fathers Believed Our Rights Came From God Not Government
The rights of government, the church and individuals and families do not come from government, they come from God as our American founding fathers so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved”
The founders referred to God as our “Creator” from whom our rights come and the “Supreme judge” who will judge our intentions and actions. They were absolutely right in this regard that governments are not the source of rights but instead God instituted government to secure the rights he had given. The Scriptures state:
“4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Romans 13:4 (KJV)
Therefore we can rightly say that Government is there to protect our God given rights and punish those who violate the God given rights of others. It is not the purpose of Government to grant new rights or nullify rights that God grants. When a government becomes “destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”.
What “Creator” and “Supreme Judge” did the American Founders Have in Mind?
Decades before the American Revolution a young John Adams wrote this in his diary:
“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!” 
Then in the decades that followed the birth of our nation this great American founder stated the following in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.” 
What Can We as Bible Believing Christians Do?
As believers we must take a page from the story of Joshua in the Bible.
“14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.
15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Joshua 24:14-15 (KJV)
America and the Western world have forsaken the God of the Bible, the God of their ancestors, for the false gods of emotionalism, feminism, secularism, humanism, egalitarianism, materialism and education.
We as believers in the God of the Bible must stand faithful in the midst of a faithless generation and follow Joshua’s example that no matter what others did – he and his family would serve the Lord.
But we must also take another page from earlier in Joshua’s story. When the children of Israel were looking to build a new nation a powerful city lay as an obstacle in their path and that was the city of Jericho. In Joshua chapter 6 we see that God told them he would destroy the walls of Jericho and all they had to do was follow his commands one of which was to shout:
“2 And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. 3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.
4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. 5 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.”
Joshua 6:2-5 (KJV)
We know from the rest of the story that the Israelites followed God’s commands and God caused the walls of Jericho to fall flat to the ground.
In the same way we as Bible believing Christians must shout out against the wickedness of secular humanists, feminists and others who oppose the knowledge of God in our culture. Sadly we must even shout out against those who claim to be Christians but stand in lock step with secularists in opposing a Biblical worldview. We cannot simply stand by in the shadows. God calls us to be a light in a dark place.
Secular humanism, feminism, egalitarianism and a host of other false gods have fortified themselves much like Jericho did. They control the courts, legislatures and media. Only God can take down the stronghold of these false gods that are entrenched in our society. But we must do our part as Christians to call it out until he does and when he does we as Bible believing Christians need to be prepared to go in after God brings the walls down.
The Fatal Flaw of Secular Humanism That Will Bring Down Its Walls
Below is the definition of Secular Humanism from secularhumanism.org:
“Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.
Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.
Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.” 
Obviously the most glaring flaw of secular humanism is its denial of the existence of God, the creator of all things including humanity. But another flaw that comes from the denial of our creator is that secular humanists fail to recognize the natural consequences for not following God’s owner’s manual – the Bible.
It is absolutely true that God instituted the spheres of “family, church and state” and gave each of them different “controls”. When you remove the controls of these three spheres that God created in any nation eventually that nation will fall.
It would be like having a car and going into the engine and switching all the spark plugs around and switching other plugs for various components and then expecting the engine to function properly. If you don’t follow the design of the car, eventually it will fail.
A critically important control for any functioning nation is the control of family. If parents fail to exercise their God mandated control over their children or husbands fail to exercise their God mandated control over their wives this will cause any nation to eventually crumble. Marriage and family form the bedrock of both churches and nations – without strong marriages and families neither of these other institutions will continue to exist.
While parents today still exercise a small amount of control over their children, husbands for the most part have completely given up all control over their wives. They no longer lead their wives, teach their wives or discipline their wives.
The result is that because men allowed feminism to take control of our nations and because men ceded their ownership of and responsibility over both their wives and daughters we have nations in the Western world that are in moral chaos.
Marriage rates have plummeted since the early 20th century, divorce has skyrocketed, birth rates have declined and of the fewer births we have almost half of them that are born out of wedlock.
This will eventually culminate in the fall of not only the United States, but all of the Western World. Another way of putting this is – when men abandoned their control of women (their wives and daughters) they broke God’s design for this world. They took their hands off the wheel of the car that is civilization and now that car is headed toward a cliff and eventual destruction.
When will the America as We Know It Fall?
The Roman Empire fell about two hundred years after it embraced multiracialism and multiculturalism and it lost its identity as an Italian Roman empire. I predict that the time line will be similar for the United States. The United States began to lose its identity as a nation of northern white European protestant Christians near the end of the 19th century. It was not long after this that secular humanism, multiculturalism and feminism secured strong footholds in American culture. So if we use that as our starting point it is most likely that America as a nation will crumble by the end of the 21st century or by beginning of the 22nd century.
The causes of this collapse could come from any these factors:
Racial Wars – As Whites in America begin to lose their majority numbers and Africans, Hispanics and other ethnic groups rise this growing diversity of ethnicities will lead to more division and eventually war.
Secular Humanists vs Christians – As Secular humanists seek to push the Christian faith further and further from American culture eventually lines will be crossed that cause Christians in mass to practice civil disobedience and then eventually military revolt against the secular powers.
The falling fertility rate – America’s fertility rate is 1.84 which is well beneath the minimum 2.1 to 2.33 that needed just to keep the population rate from falling.
The third reason, falling fertility rates, is the factor which I believe will most likely be the final straw that breaks the back of Western Civilization. Consider these other countries that have even worse fertility rates than the United States:
WorldBank.org reports that Germany’s fertility rate is 1.5, Japan is at 1.5, the UK is at 1.8 and Greece is 1.3.  Below is a chart from WorldBank.org that displays the sharp decline in births across the world.
A recent article from Bloomberg.com actually applauds the decline of its own species:
“So far, the prophets of overpopulation have been defeated by technology. But human ingenuity alone can never deliver a final victory in the battle to feed the world — eventually, population growth will overwhelm the Earth’s ability to provide calories. That’s why in order to put Malthus and Ehrlich finally to rest, a second component is needed — lower fertility rates. To save both the environment and themselves, humans must have fewer kids…
The world is now approaching that magic level, thanks to a phenomenon known as the fertility transition. In most countries, total fertility falls from a high level of about six or seven children to two or below, and stays there. Once smaller families become the norm in a country or region, they very rarely go back up. There are a number of theories for why this happens. The shift from agriculture to urban life means less incentive for families to have kids to work on farms. Urban life also increases the cost of raising a kid. Higher education levels for women, freeing them from traditional gender norms, are probably a big factor as well. Importantly, none of these factors are temporary.” 
Of all the sins Western Civilization has committed at the behest of secular humanists, environmentalists and feminists – the sin against God’s command “to be fruitful and multiply” is most likely to be the cause of their undoing.
It is a simple matter of math and the law of sowing and reaping.
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Galatians 6:7 (KJV)
If you sow less children, you will have less children. And if you have less children and continue to have less children eventually your civilization withers up and dies.
And why is a shrinking human population a bad thing? Well think of it this way. How will a business do if it continues year over year to have less customers? It will die. How will a government do if it continues to bring in less taxes each year with the same rates of spending? It will collapse. People don’t think about this. A social safety net is predicated on the fact that you have a larger population of young people to help care for the needs of its older population as well as its poor and disabled. If the younger population is only a fraction of the size of the generations that came before it the social safety cannot be sustained.
So when will world population numbers start to plunge? The approximate year is given at OverPopulationIsAMyth.com:
“The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) is the most reliable source of population statistics in the world, which is why we use their numbers for our videos. And, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.” 
So in 27 years we will see the world wide population of the earth begin to decline matching the already declining numbers of Western nations. 2045 will most likely be the beginning of the end for America Western Civilization which will most likely fall by the end of the 21st century.
The New Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics
Out of the ashes of the fall of Western Civilization, I propose that Christians could introduce new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics.
These new nations like the United States would be a Republic where the rights of both the government and the people are limited by a core set of laws much like our current Constitution. As I said previously and as the American founders once said – our rights as individuals come from God and God has spoken these rights through his Word, the Bible. Therefore this New Constitution would be based explicitly on Biblical moral law or in other words this nation would be a theonomy. This of course would take into account progressive revelation in the Bible and the realization that the Old Covenant has been replaced with the New Covenant.
These new types of Christian nations would not be theocracies– as a theocracy is directly ruled by God through his prophets and only God himself can institute a theocracy as he did with Israel. Also unlike the totalitarian theonomic military dictatorship in the popular fictional “Hand Maid’s Tale” these new nations would still be ruled democratically but within the limits of Biblical law upon which the government’s constitution would be based.
Totalitarian forms of civil government, even Christian forms of totalitarian civil government, violate the purposes for which God designed civil government. Much like we in America currently have three separate but equal branches of government with different rights and powers so too God set up three separate spheres of government with those being the family, the church and the state.
And if you examine the Scriptures closely you will see that the most powerful human authorities God established are those of the father and husband with the husband being most powerful of all. The “power” I speak of with husbands and fathers is that they have power and control over the personal decisions of their wives and children. The government does not have this type of power and neither do church authorities.
But none of these three spheres of authority may usurp power over the others. Each must respect the limits and powers of the other.
One of the most important parts of these new Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics would be safe guards placed in their new Biblically based constitutions.
These constitutions would guard against the rise of secular humanism or feminism ever being able to rise to power again in these nations. To do this, there would be a certain list of interpretations and applications of the Bible which no law and no amendment to this constitution could ever change.
Some example laws for Democratic Christian Theonomic Republics
Below are some example laws I could think of just off the top of my head. I am sure there could be many more. But the most important parts of these laws would be to protect the institution of marriage and by extension the family unit which forms the building blocks for any nation.
The rights of men to exercise their Christian faith and worship the God of the Bible according to their own consciences shall not be infringed upon by any government entity. The freedom to interpret and apply the Bible and principles and doctrines of the Christian faith are between a man and God. However, in order to guard against certain heresies that would undermine marriage and the family a limited number of interpretations and applications of the Scriptures must be adhered to by all who live within the boundaries of this nation. Those interpretations and applications are spelled out in the points that follow.
The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church and the wife is to submit to her husband in everything except if he commands her to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
Children are to obey their parents as long as their parents do not command them to break God’s moral law or the laws of this nation that do not usurp the authority of the husband and father over his family.
Women are the property of men. This means husbands exercise full ownership over their wives, and fathers exercise full ownership of their daughters and sons. Their ownership over their sons would terminate upon the son reaching the age of manhood.
A man may not marry a woman without her father’s permission. If her father is dead or the woman is a widow or divorced he should seek out another male relative of the woman under whose authority she has placed herself. Only in rare cases where a woman presents proof to a fellow kinsman defender that her father is unlawfully holding her back from all marriage may a judge decide to forfeit the rights of the father over his daughter.
If a father or mother are found guilty of engaging in incestuous relations with any of their children they shall be banned from seeing their children again as well as punished in other ways as the judges see fit. If the guilty party is the father, then the judge shall grant temporary ownership of the children to the mother until she can find a new husband.
A woman may not hold any position which gives her authority over men whether it be public office, in the work place, the church or any other place in society.
Only adult men who are professing Christians may vote in elections. A woman, whether she is a professing Christian or not, may not vote in any election whether it be local, state or national elections or anything to do with church decision making.
While all married women are under the authority of their husbands, previously married women whether they be widows or divorced should immediately place themselves back under the authority of their father or if he is dead they should find the closest adult male relative under whose authority they may find protection and guidance.
Women may not own property and if a woman comes into an inheritance this inheritance comes under the ownership of her husband. If she is without a husband, then this inheritance would remain in a trust until she is wed to a husband to whom she may give herself and her inheritance.
Only women who make vows of celibacy in service to God may enter higher education. Even then their higher education will be restricted to fields which involve caring for the sick like nursing, nurses aids, medical assistants or the care and education of children such as elementary school teachers.
If a man willfully and in full neglect of his duties fails to provide his wife with food, clothing and shelter or denies his wife her conjugal rights in marriage she will seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that willful and intentional neglect in any of these areas has been committed by the husband the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce. If the neglect extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
If a man abuses his wife or children by causing serious bodily injury or life threatening injuries to them or if he willfully places his family in life threatening positions in neglect of his duty to protect them the wife may seek out a kinsman defender to represent her cause to the judges. If the judges agree that the husband rather than protecting his family from harm, has actually placed them in harm by his actions the judges shall declare the husband’s ownership over his wife to be forfeited and she is free to ask for a divorce. If the abuse extended to the children as well the wife may request that the husband’s ownership of his children be transferred to her until she can find a new husband.
A man may only divorce his wife for adultery or his wife’s denial of his conjugal rights. In either of these cases the woman is sent away without anything but the clothing on her back and she retains no rights to her children as her husband maintains full ownership of them. If adultery is the cause of the divorce, the husband may ask a judge to impose a prison sentence as the judge sees it upon his wife.
The right of men to keep and bear arms to secure their persons, their wives, their children, their homes and their other possessions may not be infringed upon by any government entity.
The right of men to pursue through work or ingenuity their own private property including but not limited to lands and women shall not be infringed by any government entity.
The government shall encourage the formation of private charities for various types of assistance (food, medical care and housing) to the poor. All government approved charities will be required to prove that at least 90 percent of all the funds they take in go directly helping the poor and no more than 10 percent goes to their overhead. Churches will be highly encouraged to participate as private charities. Still penalties and criminal prosecution may be pursued against groups that act as charities but keep a large part of the proceeds for themselves.
Each man must present proof when he pays his taxes each year that he has donated at least 3.5 percent of his gross income to charitable causes whether it be a local church, a local soup kitchen, homeless shelters or some other cause which helps the poor. If the money was donated to his church, he must prove that the money went to help the poor. Charitable giving to support the operations of the church and its ministries to the poor must be separated. Failure to donate at least 3.5 percent of one’s income to the poor through various approved charities will result in a 10 percent tax penalty collected by the government. These tax penalties for failure to give to the poor will be redistributed to approved charitable organizations.
The government may only tax for the purposes of providing for law enforcement, public education, public infrastructure, and national defense. The only exception to this rule is the tax penalty allowed for failure to give to charitable organizations that help the poor. Other than this the government is restricted from taxing for the purposes of redistribution of wealth between various income groups.
All public education is to be conducted in support of Biblical teachings. Only professing Christians may teach religion, philosophy or history programs. If a non-Christian teaches another type of course such as business, science or engineering they may not teaching opinions or philosophies which contradict the Christian faith.
While no one may be forced to become a Christian or to attend a Christian church, all citizens of the nation must follow the moral laws of the Bible and also the laws of this nation which find their basis and authority in the Bible.
Non-Christians including those who adhere to other faiths or those who adhere to no faith at all will be tolerated in small numbers provide they do not present a threat to the unity of the Christian faith of the nation. If the number of non-Christians rises to levels which the government deems too high or any one group of non-Christians disturbs the peace and unity in a local area, state or throughout the nation government authorities shall have power to remedy this situation through imprisonment or deportation to a non-Christian nation.
A Word to Non-Christians Reading This
If you are a Muslim reading this then what I have wrote here will make a lot of sense since the vast majority of Muslims do not believe in freedom of religion in a nation as most Americans believe in. But to secular humanists reading this the questions they will ask are “what if you took these same rules and applied them to Muslim nation, Hindu nation or some other non-Christian nation? Does the ideology that a nation is built around common religion, common ethnicity and common language still apply to them?”
Before I give the answer to your question I want to share with you a statement from the Apostle Paul that is found in his first letter to the Corinthians:
“20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.”
I Corinthians 9:20-21 (KJV)
So in the words of the Apostle Paul – I am going to answer your questions on your level as a secular humanist (one who is does not believe in the law of God).
The answer to your questions is YES. The same formula of common religion, common ethnicity and common language applies to all nations whether the majority of its citizens are Christian or not. If the common religion, common ethnicity and common language of a nation is not protected by its government that nation will eventually fall. All three are necessary for the survival, stability and security of any nation.
I have worked alongside many Muslims and Hindus over the years as a software developer. While I consider their faiths to be false because I consider the Bible’s description of the character of God and the Christian faith to be far superior to those faiths, I will admit in the vast majority of cases they have strong marriages and a strong family ethic. If a religion, even a false religion, promotes the sanctity marriage and family and a nation protects that religion as the common religion of the people it will in most cases lead to a more stable and secure nation.
Secular humanism, which in my opinion is actually a religion of sorts with the natural world and humanity as its god, does not pass this test. Secular humanism leads to the weakening of marriages and the family unit. Therefore even if a nation decided that it would be a secular humanist nation and it outlawed all religion (as many communist countries did) trying to unite the people around the common philosophy of secular humanism it would eventually fail. The reason is that secular humanism by overemphasizing individualism and trying to take off the controls of the family actually weakens marriage and the family and in doing so it undermines its own society.
We can look back to the history of nations and see that nations that are not united around common religion, common ethnicity and common language ultimately fail. Not only must nations share and protect these things but they must also promote the sanctify of marriage and the family as the building blocks of society, otherwise they too will perish.
The Christian faith and the Christian Bible are vastly superior to all other religions and ideologies in giving us a blue print for the sustainability of marriage and the family and thus the sustainability of nations.
The Bible tells us in Psalm 33:12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…” but it also tells us in the book of Acts 5:29 that “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Only a Democratic Christian Theonomic Republic whose Constitution and laws are founded in the Bible and which protects the Christian faith from non-Christian interference can allow Christians to live in a culture where they never have to practice Acts 5:29.
America will not be an exception to history’s rule and neither will the rest of the Western world. We as Christians must prepare our children who can then prepare our grandchildren for the future that is coming unless God directly intervenes in this world before that time.
I have added some additional quotes(with references below) to statements from John Leland who was a highly influential Baptist preacher. He sought religious liberty and protections after Baptists in the colonies had been so badly treated by the state Anglican and Congregational churches. He was one of the greatest influences on Madison and the other founders in creating the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796.
 Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324.
 John Adams, Works, Vol. II, pp. 6-7, diary entry for February 22, 1756.
 Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIII, p. 292-294. In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
The sign above was posted in Detroit in 1942 to oppose a new federal housing project being built for African Americans. Most Christian Americans will agree that slavery was an original sin of America’s founders. But what about the founder’s restriction limiting citizenship to “free white persons” via the Naturalization Act of 1790? Was this a second sin by America’s founders?
The founder’s restriction of American citizenship to “free white persons” is part an ideology called “Ethno-Nationalism”. Ethno-Nationalists believe that nations are built on three things which are common language, common cultureand common ethnicity.
When America was founded the vast majority of its citizens were of British decent (English, Welsh or Scottish) with a minority being from other mostly white northern European nations. The new American British culture would come to set the tone for America. Even when a large amount of German immigrants would arrive in the 19th century they quickly assimilated to the American British culture that had been established.
Victor Davis Hanson in his article for the National Review – “America: History’s Exception” writes:
“The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity. Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…
Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.” 
So ethno-nationalism has been what has knit nations together for the history of mankind. America even started as an Ethno-nationalist nation. It was not until after the Civil War that American let go of its ethno-nationalist heritage and began its journey into multiracialism and eventually multiculturalism. America’s motto “e pluribus unum” or as it translates to English “out of many one” was also transformed. The founders used this phrase to refer to the 13 colonies becoming one nation. Multiracialists change it for their purposes to mean that America would be a nation that was centered on multiracialism and multiculturalism.
Most Americans feel America has lost its identity
On March 5th 2017, Matt Sedensky in an article for the Associated Press wrote:
“Add one more to the list of things dividing left and right in this country: We can’t even agree what it means to be an American.
A new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds Republicans are far more likely to cite a culture grounded in Christian beliefs and the traditions of early European immigrants as essential to U.S. identity.
Democrats are more apt to point to the country’s history of mixing of people from around the globe and a tradition of offering refuge to the persecuted.
While there’s disagreement on what makes up the American identity, 7 in 10 people – regardless of party – say the country is losing that identity…
Patrick Miller, a political science professor at the University of Kansas who studies partisanship and polling, said the results reflect long-standing differences in the U.S. between one camp’s desire for openness and diversity and another’s vision of the country grounded in the white, English-speaking, Protestant traditions of its early settlers.” 
Some Christians openly rejoice that America has transformed from its Ethno-nationalist roots into a multiracial multicultural country. Many Christian’s believe the world needs to unite and leave old divisions of race, ethnic groups and even national boundaries to the dustbin of history.
But other Christians remain silently saddened as they see the America of George Washington slip away.
The Language of Race Discussions
We have gone from one extreme in our societies to another. In times past, racial and ethnic hatred were common and generally accepted in day to day language. In the days of America’s founding it was common for whites to degrade and insult Native Americans and Blacks. In fact, to defend these groups in any way and condemn such hateful speech was rare.
But now over the past several decades in America a new hatred has arisen. The only acceptable discussion of race in America is that Whites should be ashamed of their past treatment of various races and that White privilege and prejudice is still holding back minorities like Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics. A new oppressed minority are Muslims. If you were to talk about how Whites still oppress and hold back all these groups and all the evils those of European decent have brought on the world you will be praised. You will be applauded. You will be loved.
But any speech about race today that is NOT speaking about White oppression against various races is condemned as racist and evil. For instance, even to ask the question I did in a previous post – “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” is called racist. To question government forced integration is to be called evil and racist. People lose jobs not just because of racial slurs – but even for questioning racial integration and affirmative action policies.
In fact, we are told that race does not really exist and even to consider the possibility that race actually exists is irrational and racist. The debate is closed and may not be discussed.
And finally on this topic of the language of race relations I am going to make something abundantly clear that I made in other previous posts on this discussion of race.
I do NOT support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis or other White supremacist groups. In my previous article “We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism” I denounced the actions of the KKK and Neo Nazis from a Christian perspective as not only hateful but actually as forms of domestic terrorism. I showed in previous posts that there is no allowance in the Christian faith for hating someone because of their racial or ethnic origin.
I put the above statement in red so that no one can try and twist or malign the honest discussion I am about to have about race and ethno-nationalism from a Biblical perspective into saying I support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis or other such groups.
Denying the reality of race will not end racial hatred or racial atrocities
Even a small child knows that race exists. When an adopted Black child asks his White adoptive parents “Mommy and Daddy – why do I look so different from you?” he is recognizing what we all know to be true – race exists and it is about far more than skin color differences. The child recognizes the different facial features between himself and his parents.
The difference between races is even more than facial features, hair and skin colors – in other words it is more than skin deep. While most of the scientific community is trying to erase the concept of races from modern science teachings there is one group of scientists who simply cannot ignore what they see under the skin and they are forensic anthropologists.
“Forensic anthropologists, experts in skeletons that do work for law enforcement agencies, say they are extremely accurate at deciphering the signs that identify a dead person’s bones as African, Caucasian, Asian or American Indian.
“We produce as much accuracy in race as we do with sex and age,” says George W. Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming and one of the eight anthropologists who are suing the federal government in the Kennewick case.”
Think CSI, Bones and other crime shows on TV. When they find a body in a burned out building and all they have to go on is the skeleton. Forensic experts can ascertain with a great degree of certainty whether a person is of Caucasian, African or Asian descent. And as far as Native Americans go – Native Americans really are just a particular Asian variant.
The fact is there are three major variations of human beings – Caucasians, Africans and Asians. We can call them “people groups” instead of “race” as some forensic anthropologists want to do. But the fact cannot be denied that there are three distinct and discernable major variations of human beings.
But the key word is “variation”. Just because my major variation type, people group or race is Caucasian and yours is African or Asian does not make any of us less human. It does not give any of us the right to rule over the other.
We don’t have to pretend or try to erase or minimize race from our vocabulary and thought processes to combat racial hatred.
One other word I will use often in this post is “ethnicity”. Now today in order to go along with trying to wipe out racial distinctions from our vocabularies people are saying “ethnicity” has nothing to do with race but only groups of people with shared traditions and values or perhaps national origin. The fact is for all of human history ethnicity has been associated with common heredity as well as common traditions and values and national origin. You cannot erase heredity as a historical component of ethnicity even though we are trying to do that today in nations.
So, when I use the term “ethnicity” I am using it to refer to minor human variation groups. Northern Europeans could be classified as a minor variation of the major Caucasian variation group. Englishmen would be a further subset or minor variation group of the Northern European variant group. Arabs are a West Asian and North African Caucasian variant group. Nigerians would be a minor variation of the major African variant group as compared to Kenyans being another. Chinese would be a minor variation of the major Asian variant group compared to Filipinos.
So now you will understand what I mean when I say race or ethnicity.
The Christian case against Ethno-Nationalism
Most Christian Americans and for that matter most Christians today around the world believe that ethno-nationalism is the same as racial hatred and the Bible condemns all hatred except hatred of sin:
“Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.”
Proverbs 10:12 (KJV)
So some Christians will stop right there and say the case is closed. Ethno-nationalism is racial hatred and all hatred except for hatred of sin is condemned in the Bible therefore Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and Christians should condemn it or so they say.
Some Christians will go a bit further in explaining why Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and incompatible with the Christian way of life. The following Bible passages are cited as proof that Christians should be opposed to ethno-nationalism:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28 (KJV)
“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;”
Revelation 5:9 (KJV)
“13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”
Ephesians 2:13-16 (KJV)
So the argument from Christians who believe these passages condemn the practice and ideology of ethno-nationalism goes somewhat like this:
Christ came to save all men regardless of their ethnic background. But he came not only to save all races and ethnicities – but he came to knock down the boundaries or as Ephesians 2:14 says “the middle wall of partition” between them. Since Christ made no distinction in his saving of all men from all races and ethnicities then so too we as Christians should erase all racial preferences or distinctions between races in our own personal lives – this is what we are told as Christians we must do.
Some Christians will even argue that the primary reason that Christ gave himself up on the cross was to promote racial diversity and harmony and John Piper is one of those Christians. John Piper is a nationwide respected Evangelical Pastor and Christian author and I think he represents well the modern Christian arguments against ethno-nationalism.
You won’t find the term “ethno-nationalism” in his book but you will instead find the synonym “ethnocentrism” all over his book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” like this example where he references it:
“This will mean a new global family made up of believers in Christ from every ethnic group on the planet. And it will mean that those who love that vision will work toward local manifestations of that ethnic diversity. Jesus is the end of ethnocentrism—globally and locally. Not color but faith in Christ is the mark of the kingdom.”
[4, p. 119]
In the following excerpt, instead of saying Christ came to end ethnocentrism, John Piper frames it differently by saying Christ came to bring ethnic diversity. In fact, John Piper says Christ literally died on the cross for ethnic diversity when he writes:
“…this aim of ethnic diversity and harmony in the people of God (the one priesthood and kingdom) was pursued by God at infinite cost. The cost of diversity was the blood and life of the Son of God. This is not an overstatement. Consider the wording of Revelation 5:9 very closely: “You were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” God paid the infinite price of his own Son’s life to obtain a priesthood of believers and a kingdom of fellow rulers from every race and every ethnic group on earth. Think on it. He paid this price particularly. It was for this particular people. He ransomed people “from the nations.” The issue of racial and ethnic diversity and harmony in the church is not small, because the price God paid precisely for it was not small. It was infinite.” [4, p. 141]
John Piper then concludes that it is part of our sacred duty as Christians to pursue racial diversity in all areas of our lives:
“And if it cost the Father and the Son such a price, should we expect that it will cost us nothing? That it will be easy? That the Devil, who hates the glory of God and despises the aims of the cross, will relent without a battle? No. To join God in pursuing racial diversity and racial harmony will be costly. So costly that many simply try for a while and then give up and walk away from the effort to easier things.
But if you love God—if you live to spread a passion for his supremacy in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ—you will trust him and seek his help and pursue with your life what cost Jesus his.” [4, p. 142]
As part of his belief that God has called Christians to pursue racial diversity John Piper and his wife adopted an African American girl knowing it would trouble some of his southern relatives. He also has placed racial diversity as a hiring criterion for all ministries he oversees at his Church because he believes all local churches should do their best to reflect the racial diversity of the world-wide body of Christ.
So that is the total Christian case against Ethno-nationalism in a nutshell. According to its opponents, Ethno-nationalism comes from a position of racial and ethnic hatred and part of the reason Christ came and died on the cross was to promote racial and ethnic harmony and remove the barriers between races and ethnicities.
In fact some Christians would even go as far as rejecting not only ethno-nationalism – but even nationalism itself. There are many Christians that would build on John Piper’s theology and state that Christ promoted multicultural globalism. After all we are all “one in Christ” and if we are one there is no place for national boundaries anymore.
The Christian Case for Ethno-nationalism
We have just explored the reasoning by many Christians today for their belief that Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and that God wants all Christians in every sphere of their life(which would include family, church and society) to promote and implement policies of racial and ethnic diversity.
But now I will present the case that Ethno-nationalism is not a sin against God. In fact I will show from the Scriptures that God not only allows Ethno-nationalism but in fact he was the architect of it!
I know that may sound shocking to many Christians but that is because of the sad fact that as much as we push education in our modern society – most Christians have never read the entire Bible. They just read a few portions here and there or they listen to their Pastor or read books by Christian men like John Piper.
Don’t get me wrong. I think it is great for us to listen to preachers on the radio – I do from time to time. It is great to go to church each week and here the Gospel and the doctrines of Scripture preached by a Pastor on Sundays. I have also read many Christian books by many Christian authors. But each of us must study the Scriptures for ourselves as well and remember that no Pastor or teacher (and that includes me) perfectly understands or interprets the Bible. We are all flawed men and affected by our culture and upbringing.
No culture is perfect. Sometimes cultures and governments actually get things right and enforce God’s laws and policies. Where governments do push godly polices we as Christians should support and promote such polices.
So the question is this – is John Piper and the host of Christians he represents in America and around the world right in siding with our current cultural emphasis on multiracialism and multiculturalism or are Christians like me who side with the ethno-nationalist policies of our founders as well as all nations before the modern times right?
In other words, have nations since the flood acted against God’s will in protecting their racial homogeneity?
With that said here is the case I make from the Scriptures in support of Ethno-nationalism.
The great omission of Christians who oppose ethno-nationalism
The first argument against John Pipers position is found his same book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” where he writes:
“First, that God is the God of the nations means that God created all the nations. More specifically, he created all the people in those nations in his own image. This is not Paul’s explicit focus in Romans 3:29–30, but it is implied in what he says here.
He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups. “God made from one man every nation.” Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”
Also, God made all the ethnic groups from one human ancestor. Paul says, “He made from one man every ethnos.” This has a special wallop when you ponder why he chose to say just this to these Athenians on the Areopagus. The Athenians were fond of boasting that they were autochthones, which means that they sprang from their native soil and were not immigrants from some other place or people group.
Paul chooses to confront this ethnic pride head-on. God made all the ethnic groups—Athenians and barbarians—and he made them out of one common stock. So you Athenians are cut from the same cloth as those despised barbarians.” [4, p. 153]
So, what is the argument within his own words against his larger position against ethno-nationalism and for the promotion of racial diversity in societies?
The key is in the passage he cites from Acts 17:26. John Piper makes the same omission that most anti-ethno-nationalist Christians make. Let’s look at this passage he cites in its entirety:
“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 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;”
Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)
The critical phrase he left off (and those who support his position always leave off) is “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”.
Yes, God made every “ethnos”- every human variation type from one man and that was Adam. That is an absolute Biblical truth. But the second Biblical truth found in this same verse is that God also determined the bounds of their habitation. This is a reference back to a passage in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy.
“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)
In Deuteronomy 32 we read about “the days of old” when God “separated the sons of Adam”. Now you will need to follow the bouncing ball just a couple more times to see the complete truth of the Scriptures. The event where God “separated the sons of Adam” is a reference to what God did at the tower of Babel as recorded in the book of Genesis.
The Biblical Story of Babel
The Biblical account of the tower of Babel is given to us in the book of Genesis:
“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Genesis 11:1-9 (KJV)
Genesis 11 is not the only part of the Bible to speak of what God did at the Babel event.
The book of Deuteronomy gives us more detail on the Babel event:
“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”
Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)
The phrase “the number of the children of Israel” found in Deuteronomy 32:8 refers to this passage of Scripture:
“And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.”
Exodus 1:5 (KJV)
So Deuteronomy chapter 32 tells us God did not just divide men by language but he also separated them into nations and sent them where the nations originally started across the world and Exodus 1:5 shows us he divided them into 70 groups and then in Genesis chapter 10 we read more detail on the nations and their ancestry.
When did the Babel dispersion event occur?
Bible scholars have debated this for centuries. The debate centers around a man name Peleg and his life as a reference for when Babel occurred. The Scriptures say this about Peleg:
“And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.”
Genesis 10:25 (KJV)
Arch Bishop Ussher who made his famous chronology based on Biblical events and their given timings in relation to one another placed the Babel event just before Peleg was born because Peleg means “divided”. This would mean roughly only 105 years after the flood the tower of Babel was built and God divided the people.
But if we move closer to Peleg’s death which would still be in his lifetime that would add 235 years to the Babel period. Some scholars believe there would not have been a sufficient population to build the tower as well as fulfill later Biblical events if the division happen only a 100 years after the flood making it much more likely that the Babel event probably occurred around 300 years after the flood.
It is possible if the Babel event happened 300 years after the flood that there could have been anywhere from 500,000 to has high as one million people at Babel when God separated them into nations and sent them on their way to the ends of the earth. So I would put my guess in the middle and say there might have been 700,000 people at Babel when God divided the nations.
How did God scatter the people at Babel?
Most people think God scattered the people in only one way and that was by language. The Genesis 11 account does allude to God dividing the people by giving them different languages. But as we previously have shown from Genesis 10, Deuteronomy 32:7-8 and Acts 17:24-26 not only did God divide the world by language – but he also divided the world into nations. God is literally the creator of the concept of nations.
So God sent 70 groups of people out and then split them into the various nations inhabiting the world. If he divided the people evenly we are talking about God sending out 70 groups of 10,000 people to start the first nations of the earth and then each of those groups would have divided once in their new homelands into various family and tribal groups which formed ancient cities and towns.
God divided the world by Ethnic Groups
But God did something even more interesting. He divided men into major heredity groups (races) both by nations and continents. Why don’t we find ancient nations in Africa with people who have Asian characteristics? Why don’t we find people with African characteristics in the Americas before European slave traders brought them? Why don’t we find people with Caucasian characteristics in Asia before modern times? It is because God “separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8).
In fact the only area of the world we find any mixture of races at all in ancient times was in the Middle East because it was the cross roads of the known world.
Some Christians would try and argue that the 70 groups of humans that God sent out from Babel all looked the same and that only through isolated breeding over thousands of years did distinctive East Asian, Central Asian, African, European, Australian and Native American characteristics form. That might sound fine to secularists and evolutionists but I do not buy that as a Bible believing Christian.
I do not buy into Darwin’s evolution of races. I believe God put in Adam the DNA for every distinctive characteristic of every major and minor human variation type and the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. I believe Adam carried the human DNA for every skin color variation and every hair, eye, nose and lip variation that would ever be. And John Piper actually agrees with me on this point when he wrote in the excerpt I quoted above:
“Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”
I believe Adam and Eve gave birth to children that had Asian characteristics, Caucasian characteristics and African characteristics. These were the three major human variant types – they did not evolve over thousands of years – but were there from the first men.
God made sure in his divine sovereignty that Noah and his wife would carry the distinctive DNA for all human variation types which most likely means that Noah and his wife as well as their parents were biracial couples which would make his three sons biracial and perhaps their wives were biracial as well.
And no I don’t buy into the theory that Ham was the father of the black race and that God cursed the black race. So if you think I am saying that please save your breath – I am not. I believe Ham, Shem and Japheth where biracial children who were the product of their biracial parents and grandparents. Just as the Ark carried every type of animal, bird and reptile so too it carried every human variation type in Noah’s three sons and their wives DNA.
Also I don’t believe Adam was white but rather he was most likely a middle brown of sorts somewhat like a middle easterner. But whatever he looked like it does not matter because he carried in him the DNA for every human variation that would ever exist.
Where is the proof that God separated nations by Race?
Some people might be screaming at this article right now saying “Ok you have proven that God separated the world by languages and nations but the Bible says nothing about race!” Well actually it does and John Piper has actually helped me to prove this point with this statement from his excerpt I previously gave:
“He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups.”
The Greek word for nation is ethnos from which we get our word ethnicity. It referred not only to a group of people with shared traditions and values but also with shared blood lines (common heredity). This is why I and others who are being faithful to understanding what nations were before our modern era maintain that one of the critical foundational pieces of nations that God created was common heredity or ethnos.
Acts 17:26 serves not as a defense of the concept of multicultural and multiracial nations, as John Piper and other modern Christians suggest, but rather it serves as a fatal blow to their position and a solid rock to support the idea that God not only approves of ethno-nationalism but he actually invented it!
So yes it is absolutely right to say as John Piper did that God created every human being from one man and he created every ethnicity of man. Amen and Amen. But it is also right to say that the same God who created all of us from one man and every ethnicity from one man also separated the sons of that one man by ethnicity into nations. We cannot affirm the first truth while leaving the second truth out.
Not only does the Bible clearly state that God separated the world by ethnicity into nations but world history proves it.
Why don’t we find large mixtures of races in nations before modern times? The answer is simple. It is because as the Scriptures state God created the “ethnos” and “separated” and set “the bounds of their habitation”.
That means the original inhabitants of China were sent their by God. The original inhabitants of the Americas were sent there by God. The original inhabitants of India were sent there by God. The same goes for Africa, and Europe and Australia.
So up to this point we have established from the Scriptures that it was God who separated the sons of Adam at Babel and determined where they were to go on earth. He sent 70 different groups of people out from Babel – some not too far Babel and others he would send to the other side of the planet in what would later become known as the Americas.
While the Scriptures don’t specifically describe the racial characteristics of these groups that God scattered we know from history that the major racial types were primarily clustered by continental areas and since the Scriptures tell us God sent them there we can rightly say God divided the world not only by language and nations but also by major and minor racial categories.
But then the question becomes why? Why did God scatter the people at Babel? It appears that before the flood the concept of nations did not really exist. The world was not divided by language, racial characteristics or national boundaries. So why after the flood did God divide the world in the ways we have discussed?
Why did God scatter the people at Babel?
There are positive and negative reasons God scattered the people at Babel. God loves variety. He ordained that there would be 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples. Each of the Tribes of Israel were unique as each of the 12 Apostles were unique. He used 4 different men to write the Gospel from four different viewpoints.
Now God could have had every variety of man in one big worldwide order with all the major and minor variations of man that he knew he created all intermarrying and living in one interracial utopia with one culture. But this was not what he wanted. He wanted man to fill the earth and to spread across from one side of the planet to the other. He wanted a variety of different languages and ethnicities and nations to form.
But the people at Babel forgot God and forgot his command that he gave to Noah:
“And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.”
Genesis 9:7 (KJV)
God wanted Noah’s decedents to not only have lots of children but he also wanted them to spread out across the earth and fill the earth. Instead the decedents of Noah turned against God’s command and purposefully sought to keep themselves together.
Often times one sin leads to an even greater sin and this is what happened at Babel.
There is a sinful ideology that absolutely grew like an infectious disease after Noah’s descendants decided to stay together at Babel over several centuries. That sinful ideology was secular humanism.
Secular humanism is the Spirit of Babel and the Spirit of Babel is secular humanism – they are one and the same.
And do you know what feeds the Spirit of Babel and causes it grow? When mankind unites in the name of mankind across racial, ethnic and national boundaries under anything except obedience to and the worship of God.
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
Genesis 11:4 (KJV)
The people did not want to make a name for God – they wanted to make a name for mankind. Listen to this definition of Humanism from dictionary.com which so perfectly fits the people at Babel:
“a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.” 
In Genesis 11:6 God tells us there would be no limit to what mankind could do if they remained united:
“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.”
So, God was saying there were no limits to the sin man could commit when the world unites and this is why he wanted men separated by language, culture and race in various places throughout the world.
America played with humanism and brought about the new Babel
The fact is that while many of the founding fathers were godly men they also dabbled in secular humanism as well. They thought they could “Christianize” humanism. Humanist philosophy began to grow in America and be influenced more by European thinkers. Atheism, egalitarianism, multiracialism, feminism and eventually multiculturalism took over until the values of America barely resembled those of her founders.
America started off as a Christian ethno-nationalist nation of northern European decent and in just over century it transformed into a secular humanist multiracial multicultural “melting pot”. America would go on to be instrumental in bringing the world together to form the new Babel “that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.”
Truly the new uniting of the world with America at its center has resulted in evils that would be unimaginable a century ago. The most powerful human sphere of authority God ever established – that of the husband and father has been almost completely neutered as a result of efforts to appease feminists and meet the demand of a secular society for greater equality for all its members. Infanticide in the form of abortion is the law of the land resulting in the deaths of millions of children each year.
Divorce is rampant and cohabitation is fully accepted. Full acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism is mandated by law. God has been chased out of our schools and secularism is fully entrenched. Laziness is subsidized through social programs. Most of the Churches in the western world (including America) have bought into the social Gospel.
Integration schemes are continually tried to force different ethnicities to unite. Governments seize money from the rich and middle classes in their futile attempt to end poverty in all nations as well as redistribute wealth between different ethnic groups.
The fatal mistake Christian Diversity Advocates make
I am going to quote you a few passages of Scripture that point out a critical truth of the Scriptures that Christian diversity advocates make.
“34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:”
Luke 20:34-35 (KJV)
You might be scratching your head now saying “what does marriage have to do with ethno-nationalism?” It is not marriage that I want you to notice but instead look at two key phrases Christ says here. Those phrases are “this world” and “that world”.
We live in “this world” not “that world”. Even Christ said his kingdom was not yet of “this world”:
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
John 18:36 (KJV)
Now he did say that one day he would come to rule and establish his kingdom here on earth:
“26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.”
Mark 13:26-27 (KJV)
And in the book of Revelation it says that Christ will rule over the nations with a rod of iron:
“13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.”
Revelation 19:13-16 (KJV)
What is my point? The fatal mistake diversity advocates like John Piper and other Christians who attack the concept of ethno-nationalism make is that they think they can bring about “that world” before Christ comes.
Only God himself can cancel his Babel policy that he made for mankind. Only when Christ returns to rule over this earth can the nations of the earth unite without returning to evil spirit of Babel.
Did Christ die to promote racial diversity?
My Bible does not tell me that Christ died to bring “racial diversity” in this world “globally and locally” but rather it tells me “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3).
Absolutely it makes no difference what our race, ethnicity, gender or social status is – Christ saves us all just the same. And praise be to God he has saved and will continue to save men and women from “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9).
Christ gave this great commission to his Church:
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Mark 16:15 (KJV)
Christ didn’t say “go promote racial diversity and get rid of ethno-nationalism” he said to go into the world and preach the Gospel. He did not call us to bring about his earthly kingdom – he will do that himself one day. When I read John Piper’s statements about Christ dying for racial diversity it very much reminded me of when Christian feminists say Christ died to abolish the sin of patriarchy and bring about gender equality.
For now, we are to live in “this world” while looking forward to “that world”. No Christian should actively seek to work against or cancel out God’s Babel policy in this time and this world. Only Christ can do that one day when he returns to reign.
How should we as Christians respond to living in the new Babel?
First, we need to realize that we live in this sin cursed world and that ethno-nationalism can create an environment that when unchecked by Christian principles can lead to sinful racial pride, racial hate and bigotry. History shows this time and time again. But do we think God did not know that when he instituted ethno-nationalism at the tower of Babel? Of course, he did. But he knew an even greater sin of humanism and secularism would occur if men stayed together. Yes, nations would be sinful on their own – but if all the ethnos of the world united together under anything less that Jesus Christ himself as King it would spell complete rebellion against God. And that is what we see today.
This is another area where John Piper and others get it completely wrong. Christ was condemning the sinful racial pride, hatred and bigotry of Israel but he was not condemning the policy of ethno-nationalism which he himself established in Israel as he had for all nations at Babel.
So, as we are forced to live in this new Babel we must always be personally checking ourselves against attitudes of sinful racial pride, racial hatred and racial bigotry. We must also guard against sinful national pride, national hatred and national bigotry.
But I want you to notice a word I always put out in front of pride and that is “sinful”. Pride is not always sinful in the same way that hate and anger are not always sinful. Sometimes pride is actually holy and just in the same way that hate and anger can be holy and just.
“Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.”
Proverbs 17:6 (KJV)
For parents to be proud of their children’s accomplishments if not sinful. If that pride in their children’s accomplishments leads to them degrading other’s people’s children because they have not had the same accomplishments then it becomes sin. In the same way, it is not wrong for anyone to glory in the accomplishments of their father or forefathers or even those of their same kindred or ethnicity.
When an American wins at the Olympics it is not wrong for us as Americans to be proud of our fellow American that won.
Some will point to this verse to say Christians should not regard themselves as citizens of any nation whether it be America or any other:
“20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly waitfor a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
Philippians 3:20-21 (NASB)
But these Christians are making that same error I pointed out earlier of confusing “this world” with “that world”. We eagerly await the transformation of our bodies into glorified bodies in heaven – but we are not there yet. For now, we live in this world and we are in fact citizens of whatever nation God has placed us in.
What should our attitude as Christians be toward racial diversity?
There are two extremes on this issue of racial diversity. One extreme of ages past taught that we as Christians are forbidden from any interaction with people of other races and ethnicities. The Bible does not support such a notion and this passage of Scripture directly contradicts that:
“11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”
Galatians 2:11-13 (KJV)
We don’t have to be ashamed to associate with people of other ethnicities, especially brothers in Christ. Churches should not forbid various ethnicities from coming to them. They should be open to all ethnicities because it is not the job of the church to protect its racial homogeneity.
But then we have the other extreme. While it is not the job of the Church to protect its racial homogeneity, it is also NOT the job of the Church to vigorously promote and encourage racial diversity.
What about parents and their children? Is it a sin for a parent to prefer their child marry someone of their own ethnicity? The answer is no. We see examples of parents being very protective of making sure their children married within their ethnicity:
“2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to mykindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.”
Genesis 24:2-4 (KJV)
Again, as I said in the previous post – interracial marriage is not a sin in and of itself. But it is also not a sin for parents to prefer their children marry within their own ethnicity.
And finally, on the subject of national policy. We as American Christians live in a nation where we can vote and we have a say in government policies and since we as the people have say in the direction our nation goes we must oppose policies that continually run contrary to God’s Babel policy.
What that means is we as Christians should vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to weaken the nation’s sovereignty and identity and give that sovereignty to the United Nations or other international groups.
We must vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to strengthen the spirit of Babel in our society by forcing racial and ethnic integration such as bussing schemes and housing schemes. We as Christians should vote against affirmative action schemes and any legislation which would impose racial diversity quotas on centers of education or businesses. If we as Christians were ever presented with government proposals to limit immigration by ethnicity as we did before the 1960’s we should support such efforts.
Christians should absolutely support a ban on immigration from all Muslim nations not only to protect ourselves from terrorism but to protect our ethnic and cultural identity. Christians should oppose building permits for new mosques in their neighborhoods.
It’s not about just about protecting Whites from the attacks of racial diversity pushers in America, it is about working to weaken or stop the spirit of Babel which is so prevalent throughout the world today and trying to return to God’s Babel’s policy where he “separated the sons of Adam”.
I hold no hatred for those who are not of my racial and ethnic kindred and I also hold no illusions about America remaining a majority white nation. I am not angry at Black, Hispanic or Asian Americans.
I am saddened at the behavior of my own kindred – those of British decent, those of northern European decent. They embraced humanism, egalitarianism, multiracialism and feminism and in the process gave away the nation their ancestors fought and died for. White men gave up their duty to protect the racial homogeneity of their nation both by engaging in slavery of the African people as well as allowing the slaves to stay after had they had been freed against the wishes of Abraham Lincoln who wanted to send them back to Africa.
White men in America gave up their leadership of their families and this nation when they allowed women to leave the home, pursue their own career interests and have less children. They again failed to protect their racial homogeneity with the removal of all ethnic limits on immigration in the 1960s.
The spirit of Babel may not be stoppable and it may simply hearken the end of days. But until Christ returns to establish his kingdom in this world we as Christians have no right to throw out God’s Babel policy nor should we embrace the evil spirit of Babel in our world.
Most Christian Americans including myself condemn the words and actions of White supremacists, the KKK and Neo Nazis. But in our private lives whether it be who we date or marry, the neighborhood we live in or the church we attend we live racially segregated lives.
This will be my first article in a series I am calling “A Biblical View of Race Relations”.
Racial Segregation in America has changed little over a half century after the Civil Rights movement. The map of the United States that is at the top of this article has been called “The Race Dot Map” . It was made by Dustin Cable at the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service. His program draws on data from the 2010 U.S Census and it literally has over 308 million dots representing individuals living in the United States and he combined this with google maps technology to bring us this stunning representation of racial distribution in America.
Blue dots represent Whites, green dots represent Blacks, orange dots represent Latinos and red dots represents Asians. Brown represents other racial groups.
A brief glance at the race dot map shows blue blotches all across America confirming the statistics that America is still a primarily white nation. However those dots reveal something else. Whites choose to live in rural areas far more often than minorities do. Minorities (Blacks, Asians and others) in many parts of the country tend to live in or just outside of major metropolitan areas.
But the most important thing they reveal is racial segregation. Even in areas that appear to be purple from a high level view (that means a lot of races living near each other) when you zoom in on the map to neighborhood levels you will see that neighborhoods across America are still primarily segregated by race.
“According to the CNN/Kaiser poll, a majority of whites (69%) say the people they live around are mostly of the same race as them, while Hispanics predominantly say they live around people of other races (59%). Blacks are split, with 51% saying they live around people of other races and 41% saying they live around mostly other black people.
One longstanding explanation for the prevalence and persistence of racial segregation is that white families are unwilling to live in neighborhoods, or send their children to schools, with large minority shares. A landmark study published in 1971 by economist Thomas Schelling demonstrated that once the minority share reaches a “tipping point,” the whites leave.” 
“A federal district court judge has decided that Gardendale – a predominantly white city in the suburbs of Birmingham, Alabama – can move forward in its effort to secede from the school district that serves the larger county. The district Gardendale is leaving is 48 percent black and 44 percent white. The new district would be almost all white.
The idea that a judge could allow this is unfathomable to most, but the case demonstrates in the most stark terms that school segregation is still with us. While racial segregation in U.S. schools plummeted between the late 1960s and 1980, it has steadily increased ever since – to the the point that schools are about as segregated today as they were 50 years ago.…
In my view, we cannot fix those systems by way of more individual choice, charters, vouchers or school district secessions. The fact is, educational funding is down across the board, when compared to a decade ago. If we want all students to have a decent shot at better education, we need to recommit to statewide systems of public education. Only then will our base fears and racial biases begin to fade into the background.” 
“According to the survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute in 2013, 91 percent of people in the close social networks of white Americans, or the people they most often talk to about important matters, are also white. Similarly, 83 percent of those in the close social networks of black Americans are black.” 
“In 2015, 17 percent, or one in six newlyweds, had a spouse of a different race or ethnicity compared with only 3 percent in 1967, according to a Pew Research Center report released Thursday…
The largest share of intermarried couples — 42 percent — include one Latino and one white spouse, though that number has declined from 1980, when 56 percent of all intermarried couples included one white and one Hispanic person.
The most significant increase in intermarriage is among black newlyweds; the share of blacks marrying outside their race or ethnicity has tripled from 5 percent to 18 percent since 1980.
While white newlyweds have seen a surge of intermarriage, with rates rising from 4 to 11 percent, they are the least likely of all major racial or ethnic groups to intermarry.” 
My personal choices regarding segregation
I live just outside a major metropolitan area and like other major metropolitan areas in the country it is racially diverse unlike rural areas that are mostly White.
I have for many years worked alongside of Black, Asian, Indian and many other racial groups as a software developer. In fact, being in the software development world will expose you to almost every racial demographic that there is. I have been in hiring positions and have hired Black, Asian and Indian programmers.
While there is a Baptist Church just down the street from my house that is primarily Black I choose to attend another Baptist Church not far my house that is primarily White.
I have moved several times over the years and anytime I moved to a new house I had choices between neighborhoods that were mostly White, mostly Black, mostly Asian and some that were very racially diverse with equal parts of different races. I have chosen neighborhoods that were mostly White every time.
If my children were to attend the School district in the city I live the school is actually almost half Black. We chose to exercise school of choice options and send them to a mostly White school district that is nearby.
When I was dating when I was a young man I chose only White women to date and I married a white woman who is the mother of my children. After my divorce from my first wife and when I went on dating sites I chose only White women in my racial preferences and I dated and eventually married a White woman again.
In my personal life my closest personal friends are White. But I do have many extended relationships with Blacks due to this site. Since I started this blog more than 3 years ago I have interacted with many African American Pastors both hear in America as well as in Africa itself. In fact I can say that in Africa the Bible teachings regarding gender roles are far better received than they are here in America.
As a result of this site I have also been able to interact with many Christian Pastors in India and other Eastern areas. It has been a blessing to hear from them how this ministry has helped them. I have actually had many requests from Pastors in Africa and India to translate my writings into their local languages and I was more than happy to give them permission.
Summary of the facts about self-segregation in America
Race segregation is no longer mandated by law in America as it once was. Instead today we mostly choose to live self-segregated lives.
The facts are that whites(myself included) primarily desire to live in neighborhoods that are primarily white, send their children to schools that are primarily white and worship in Churches that are primarily white. Whites primarily date and marry whites. And for the most part Blacks and Asians do the same but to a lesser or greater degree. Hispanics seem to be more integrated than other minority groups although that is not true in all areas of the country.
Yes there is a percentage among all the races whether it is 10 to 20 percent of persons that regularly integrates with other races. So this is not to say that whites never marry Blacks, or that Asians never marry whites. It is not to say that Whites never have Black friends or Asians never have White friends. But the norm or pattern in American society is that races generally live segregated personal lives mostly being around people of their own race unless there are too few of their race in a given area and they are forced to integrate with other races.
Does the Bible condemn Self-Segregation?
Anyone reading this that lives near a major metropolitan area in the United States would not even need to read these statistics I have just listed or see the Race Dot Map to know from their own life experience that we live mostly segregated lives. The fact that racial segregation exists is beyond dispute. If you are a person that has many close friendships with people of other races and you attend a church that is very racially diverse and you live in a very racially diverse neighborhood you are the exception in America, not the norm.
The fact is that human beings in large part tend to cluster with those whom they share the most common heredity.
This is why despite early struggles between those of English and German descent and then those of Irish descent eventually these groups all came together in America and their children easily intermarried because they have a common heredity. Before a German, Frenchman, Englishman or Irishman opens his mouth it would be difficult to tell which one he is simply because of common heredity between these groups. Yet if you stood an Englishman next to a Greek man you would be able to tell one was of Northern European descent and the other was of Southern European decent.
So, the question then becomes is this natural human clustering by common heredity a form of hatred towards others of different heredity? Is this natural tendency for human beings to cluster in this way a part of our sin nature that we as Christians should struggle against?
We know for sure that the Bible does not allow us to hate people based on their race or ethnic background.
“Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.”
Proverbs 10:12 (KJV)
There is absolutely no Biblical allowance for hating people because of their racial or ethnic origins. Yes, we can hate sin and evil systems of thought and wicked practices but God never allows us to hate people because of their ethnic background.
What we have seen in recent days from White supremacists, KKK members and Neo-Nazis is the very definition of racial hatred and we have seen how racial hatred “stirreth up strifes”. Whether it is the belief that the White race is superior to others and therefore should rule over other races or hatred of Jews and Blacks or other groups – we as Christians should condemn such actions by these groups.
But there is one belief in these groups that we have no right to condemn. We should never condemn their love for their kindred- those of their common heredity. Do we condemn Blacks for loving those who share common heredity with them? Do we condemn Irishmen or Italians for loving those of common heredity with them? What about Chinese or Japanese people? What about Jews?
Many Whites in America love their White heritage but are afraid to say it publicly. Many Whites would be ashamed to admit what I did about preferring to be around those of common heredity with them(other Whites). We are taught if we say we love and prefer to be around Whites, or if we ever feel defensive because of attacks against Whites in our media and politics that we are the same as the KKK and Neo-Nazis and this comparison is an utter and complete LIE.
While I do not believe Whites should march alongside of KKK members and Neo-Nazis who promote hatred and violence – I do believe Whites should find peaceful ways to stand up against the attacks on White culture in America. It is sad when men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson can only be seen in light of their involvement with slavery(which I agree was an original sin of America). This would be like saying we need rip out the Psalms because King David was a murderer and adulterer. It is utterly absurd.
Some will try and say “Well most whites in America are not purely English, Scottish, Irish, and German and so on but rather they are a mixture of these ethnicities. So they have no right to love or prefer whites because whites are a made up ethnicity.” But can anyone deny that those of northern European descent do not have more in common as far as their heredity than they do with those in southern Europe, Africa and the Middle East? The answer is no – this fact cannot be denied.
But contrary to popular American and Western teachings today – preferring to live among those of common heredity whether we refer to this as “race”, “ethnicity” or “kindred” is not the same as hating those who are of a different heredity.
The Apostle Paul said this of those of who were his common kindred, those of his common heredity:
“2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
Romans 9:2-5 (KJV)
Paul never said he wished himself accursed for the Greeks, Romans or any other ethnic group – he only said this of his own “kinsmen according to the flesh”.
To love one’s kinsmen according to the flesh, those of common heredity, more than those who are not kinsmen according to the flesh is not sinful or wrong. Whether it be to love one’s children, one’s parents, one’s cousins or even one’s ethnicity or race more than those they do not share common heredity with is not immoral or a violation of God’s law.
In fact the Bible says the first way we put our faith into practice is by caring for our kindred, specifically those or our own family:
“But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.”
1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV)
So the conclusion of the matter is this. If loving and therefore preferring one’s kindred according to the flesh more than others is not sinful or wrong then neither is self-segregation.
Am I saying self-integration is wrong?
Let me be very clear that just because I am saying self-segregation is not wrong does not mean I am saying self-integration is wrong. The Bible does not forbid us from marrying those with whom we do not share common racial or ethnic heredity. So no it is not a sin for a White person to marry a Black person or an Asian person. It is not a sin for a White person to prefer the company of Blacks or Asians and live in interracial neighborhoods or attend interracial churches.
What I am saying is that it is wrong for those who choose to self-integrate to condemn those who choose not to and it is especially wrong for governments to force integration upon their populations through various housing schemes and busing schemes.
Government forced racial integration is a violation of basic human freedom and the freedom of association.
Forced racial integration by governments is the flip side of racial hatred by groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis in that both of these can be the direct cause of racial strife.
Doesn’t the Bible call Christians to ignore race and ethnicity?
There are a few passages of the Scriptures that will be raised by some to challenge the idea that self-segregation is not wrong for Christians and they will say it is in fact a violation of the Christian faith and the passage below is the best representation of them:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28 (KJV)
This passage condemns segregation in the assembled Church. It is completely unchristian and unbiblical for a church to limit its membership by race or social class. Christ is the savior of all regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or social status (slave or free, rich or poor).
In Christ there is no spiritual distinction between these classes, but Christ did not call for the elimination of social or physical distinctions in this world. In other words – Christ was not an egalitarian.
The Apostle Paul sent back a runaway slave to his owner (read the Epistle to Philemon) and he commanded slaves to obey their masters (Colossians 3:22, Ephesians 6:5, I Peter 2:18). While there is no distinction in the salvation of male and female human beings God commands that “the head of the woman is the man” (I Corinthians 11:3) and that wives are to be subject to their husbands in everything “as the church is subject unto Christ” (Ephesians 5:24).
The fact is that distinctions such as ethnicity, race and gender still exist in this world and other things that cause people to naturally cluster still exist in this world and Paul recognized that when speaking of his love for his kindred in the flesh (his Jewish brethren).
Let me just say one more word about those who self-integrate and those who actually thrive on integrating with people of very different racial and ethnic backgrounds. I thank God for these people! We would not have missionaries without having people like this. In the same way that God grants the gift of celibacy to a chosen few I believe he grants this gift of self-integration and desire to some to go to other peoples. They thrive on this and we as Christians should support this.
In fact, my Christian friends who disagree with me the most on this issue of self-segregation are usually missionaries. They just can’t fathom why everyone should not be like them and thrive on interracial and interethnic integration. In fact a great deal of Christian missionaries I know reject the entire concept of nationalism in any of its forms.
In my next article I will cover the topic of ethno-nationalism from a Biblical perspective.
President Trump is absolutely right that we need condemn violent extremists of BOTH the “alt-right” and the “alt-left”.
Last year it was 21 police officers being assassinated or ambushed and this weekend a man drove his car through a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia injuring 19 and killing one. All of these events are forms of terrorism and must be equally condemned.
We as Christians need to stand up against all forms of terrorism. Terrorism has no place in Biblical Christianity.
What is Terrorism?
Terrorism is when a person or group of persons attempts to bring about a desired political or social change by specifically targeting the civilian population of the region in which they hope to bring about a change. Terrorists attempt to “terrorize” the civilian population into pressuring their political leaders to make the changes they want.
It needs to be made clear that terrorism is not simply a person or group killing people in order to scare others into bowing to their demands. Terrorism also occurs in the form the threats or intimidation of the demands of certain group are not met.
So, for example – if a crowd of people march through the street peacefully advocating for societal or political changes this is not terrorism. However, if this same crowd marches through the street advocating for using intimidation or violence to force society to embrace their views this would be a form of terrorism. If a group of protestors actually engages in physical violence and intimidation including burning down buildings and looting this is most definitely a form terrorism.
Examples of White Terrorism
When the KKK and other white supremacist groups engaged in burning crosses on people’s lawns this was a form of terrorism against blacks. When the KKK and other groups have burned down black churches and engaged in lynching’s this was a form of terrorism against blacks. When whites stood at voting stations trying to scare blacks away from exercising their lawful right to vote this was a form of terrorism against blacks.
Most recently when Dylan Roof, an admitted white supremacist, killed 9 people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston South Carolina on June 17th, 2015 this was a textbook case of White terrorism. Last weekend when James Alex Fields, an admitted neo nazi, used his car as a weapon to mow down counter protestors injuring 19 and killing one in Charlottesville, Virginia this was also a textbook case of White terrorism.
Examples of Black Terrorism
In the 60’s and 70’s when groups like the Black Panthers advocated for the assassinations of police officers (and many police officers were in fact assassinated) this was a form of terrorism. When blacks marched through the street peacefully advocating for change this was not terrorism, but when blacks rioted in various cities burning down whole city blocks these actions were textbook cases of Black terrorism. In fact, rioting by blacks has become an almost accepted form of terrorism by our current American culture over the last half century.
The threat of riots is also a form of terrorism. Think of how many times over the past half century that jurors on certain cases had to consider that blacks in their city or cities around the country might riot and people could be hurt or killed as a result of their verdict. That fear of a riot SHOULD NEVER EVER have to be a consideration for any juror in any trial.
Recent examples of Black terrorism include the Ferguson riots in which many businesses were burned out and looting took place. Black terrorism that was very reminiscent of the terrorism which took place in the 60s and 70s occurred last year. On the fourth of July 2016 in New York City, a black man named Alexander Bonds, walked up to a police car in New York and assassinated a female police officer named Miosotis Familia. Three days later on July 7th, a black man named Micah Xavier Johnson, an admitted Black Lives Matter supporter, gunned down 14 police officers killing 5 of them in Dallas, Texas. Then only 10 days later on July 17th, another black man named Gavin Long ambushed and then assassinated 3 police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In total, 21 police officers nationwide lost their lives to ambush style assassinations by mostly black assailants.
Examples of Muslim Terrorism
Whether it was the attacks of September 11, 2001 which killed almost 3000 people or the Boston Marathon Bombing which injured several and killed 3 people Muslim terrorism is perhaps the most rampant amongst an ideological group of people. We have almost become accustomed to hearing weekly on the news about bombs going off in crowded squares or men with cars or knives running into crowds and indiscriminately killing people all done to further the political ideologies of Radical Islamic terrorists.
Examples of Antifa Terrorism
“Antifa”, short for “Antifacists” groups have been around since the 1920’s and 1930’s but have had their numbers and financing swell since the election of Donald Trump and the could right be considered part of the “alt-left” in America. Antifa Groups believe that violence is warranted and justified against any groups they deem to be sexist or racist or in many terms anyone opposed to progressive and socialist ideologies.
Their goal is to use force and intimidation to shut down public meetings, speaking events or protests by groups which they deem to be opponents of their ideology.
Recent examples of Antifa violence include violence against a white nationalist demonstration in Sacramento, California on July 26th 2016 where 14 people were injured including 7 being stabbed. On Thursday, February 2nd 2017, 150 Masked Antifa protestors came to UC Berkeley to right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking there. After the violence and property damaged they caused for fear of public safety the University canceled his speaking engagement.
At a Pro-Trump rally, on April 15, 2017 Antifa members again came to violently intimidate trump supporters. 20 arrests were made and 11 people were wounded.
White Terrorists meet Antifa Terrorists at the “Unite the Right” clash in Charlottesville
The most recent White terrorist and Antifa terrorist events actually took place at the same event on the same day in Charlottesville, Virginia this last week on Saturday, August 12th 2017. The “Unite the Right” event was organized to protest the removal of Confederate Statues and land marks in Southern States.
On Friday night, the first night of the event, men marched with white tee shirts and torchers toward a monument of Thomas Jefferson. Their march was a meant to be a reminder of clan marches of decades before. Fights broke out with student protesters at the base of the statue and were later broken up by police.
The worst part of the event though came the next morning on Saturday, August 12th. By that time many more Neo Nazis and white supremacists had arrived but also Antifa forces had arrived in force. The police instead of separating the Antifa and other protestors from one another for most part allowed them clash leading to extremely intensive violence with fights breaking out on both sides culminating in a neo-Nazi man named James Alex Fields, using his car to mow down 19 and killing one is very reminiscent of recent Muslim terrorist attacks.
President Trump was absolutely RIGHT when he condemned violence on “many sides”
In one of his first statements on the violence in Charlottesville President Trump stated:
“We condemn in the strong possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides”
He was criticized by many in the press and even his own Republican party for not simply denouncing the White supremacists by name in his first statements. Most Americans, because of one sided reporting by the press, thought all the violence was coming from the White supremacist side and that was actually quite false. Some on both sides have argued that if it were not for the lack of police getting between the two groups and especially Antifa agitators looking to gin up violence the tragic death of Heather Heyer would never have occurred.
I thought this was a great statement by President Trump condemning White Terrorism and hate groups:
“And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.”
However, I believe this statement does not go far enough. If you are going to name the names of groups involved – then you MUST name all groups involved on both sides. Where was the condemnation of Antifa groups that came to agitate and incite violence? I realize President Trump was under a lot of political pressure but if you going to name names – you need to name both groups involved in the violence.
I am so glad that as I was writing this article President Trump had the courage to speak out against the alt-left that was also was responsible for the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia.
This was his statement in a press conference today according to CNN:
“”I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump said during a contentious back-and-forth with reporters in the lobby of his Midtown Manhattan building.
“What about the ‘alt-left’ that came charging at, as you say, the ‘alt-right,’ do they have any semblance of guilt?” Trump asked. “What about the fact they came charging with clubs in hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do.”
He added: “You had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. nobody wants to say it, but I will say it right now.””
President Trump also made a FABULOUS point about the error of removing confederate statues and relating it to George Washington:
“George Washington was a slave owner. So will George Washington lose his status? Are we going to take down statues to George Washington?” he said. “How about Thomas Jefferson, what do you think of Thomas Jefferson, do you like him? OK good. Are we going to take down the statues, because he was a major slave owner? Now are we going to take down his statue?”
He added: “You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”
Hate is not always wrong – it is what we hate and how we direct our hatred
As Bible believing Christians we know that we are to love our brother but hate and rebuke their sin:
“Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.”
Leviticus 19:17 (KJV)
“But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ”
Ephesians 4:15 (KJV)
So, hating sin is righteous, but hating people is never encourage in Christianity.
If we were to translate this for non-Christians the concept would be this:
You can hate the ideology and actions of a person or group of persons and even condemn those ideologies and actions but you should never hate the person or group of persons themselves.
So practically speaking I can hate the underlying ideologies of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Antifa and Black Lives Matter but still love them as people. I preach vehemently against these ideologies but hold no hatred for their persons in my heart.
In the political and spiritual worlds, we need to fight with words and ideas not fists, knives, guns and bombs.
“3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (KJV)
Is there a time to fight with fists, knives guns and bombs?
I just said in the political and spiritual world of disagreements and debates and in trying to push for what we think is right we should never resort to physical violence.
But that does not mean there is never a time for violence. The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 3:8 that there is indeed “a time for war” and King David said “Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight” in Psalm 144:1. Even the right and responsibility of a man to defend his home and his family is stated by the Prophet Nehemiah when he said “fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses” in Nehemiah 4:14.
So, when is violence justified whether on a national level in sense of nations going to war or the case of individuals and families?
The answer is when someone threatens the freedom or safety of our family we every right to defend ourselves and our families. If someone were to come and try to kidnap my wife or children to use them as slaves I have every right to engage in violence against them to stop them. If a nation threatens the safety of our nation our national leaders have a right to call us to the defense of our nation.
But just because my local, state or federal government passes policies or laws that I feel are unjust or immoral does not mean I have a right to act in violence against them until they change the laws to what I think are just and right. Now there may be times that we as Christians may or even should practice civil disobedience to those laws – but we do not have the right to go and terrorize the citizens of our area until they pressure the governing officials to change the laws and policies to our liking.
While the right of self-defense is Biblical – terrorism is NEVER right. It is never right to use various means to terrorize the civilian population of any region to try and pressure the people to pressure their leaders to change laws and policies to please a certain group.
While there are those on the right like the KKK and Neo-Nazis who try and intimidate or terrorize opponents of their views the fact is in America the vast majority of intimidation and terrorism from a political perspective comes from the left.
Conservatives, especially conservative Christians, cannot speak their views on college campuses or in their places of work without being intimidated into silence by leftists. Especially in places of learning like colleges, schools and other public venues where we should be able to openly and freely discuss things that even cut to the core of our society. We should be able to openly and honestly discuss differences regarding faith, race, culture, views of equality, marriage and gender roles but far too often these subjects are completely shut down in our society.
In a follow-up article to this I am going to delve a bit into the topic of White nationalism. As preview of that article we will be discussing the concept that White nationalism does equal Neo-Nazis and the KKK. The Neo-Nazis and KKK and other violent White groups are white nationalists for sure – but not all White nationalists advocate for violence or are like Neo-Nazis or the KKK.
We will talk about White nationalism as a form of nationalism called “Ethno-nationalism”. I realize for many of my readers they might be scratching their heads saying “why is he getting into this – this is Biblical Gender Roles after all?” and the reasons are simple.
I have said before that for most of my life I have been a student of history, theology and human nature. On the subject of human nature, I have always been curious as to why we as humans behave the way we do and what ways we behave that are natural or right by God’s design and which ways are contrary to his design and I think as Christians we cannot avoid the subjects of racism and ethno-nationalism.
In the same way that some Muslim clerics bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against western countries so too President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter bear direct responsibility for inspiring violence against the police officers of this nation.
My heart goes out to the families of the police officers who lost their lives today in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. But just as Islamic terrorism against western nations will not stop until we attack the sources of its inspiration so too Black terrorism against police will not stop until we remove the sources of its inspiration.
And please do not think I am advocating for any violence against our President or black leaders like Al Sharpton and Jackson. By “remove” I mean we need to shame these men and these groups publically for the violence they have been inspiring for many years against police.
For decades characters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have fomented black hatred of police. The problem in their view was not that blacks commit crimes at vastly larger rate in proportion to their population – the problem was police profiling. Then our nation elected its first black president and instead of focusing on the problems in the black community that cause crime (like the breakdown of the family) this President chose to focus on police profiling. This President has directly fomented violence against police by giving credence to the falsehoods of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and groups like Black Lives Matter.
We must attack the ideologies that inspire violence
In both Islamic terrorism and now in recent Black terrorism we must realize the enemy is an ideology. We cannot stop “lone wolfs” or small groups of blacks or Muslims who want to strike fear in the population at large or police in particular. What we must do is attack the ideology that inspires these people to do the heinous things that they are doing.
Here are five things we can do to fight this propaganda war to destroy the sources of inspiration for these evil acts:
Any groups which promote violent acts to terrorize citizens or police must be hunted down and brought to justice.
Any websites that promote terrorism toward citizens or police must be shut down or we need target them with cyber warfare.
Even groups like Black Lives Matter that do not directly promote violence but whose ideologies are indirectly inspiring terrorist acts against citizens or police must be defunded and called out as inspirations for these acts.
We also need to shout from the roof tops and put in perspective the statistical facts for black citizens about the hugely disproportionate amount crime which comes out of the black community which makes race a factor in crime profiling.
We need to help the black community redirect its anger and frustration with police profiling back at the problems within its own community including the fact that 90% of blacks in this country are killed by other blacks.
Black anger needs to be directed inward
The last point I just made is about the need to help blacks redirect their anger and frustration with the police back at the problems in their own community. I recently wrote a post entitled “How can we blame Police for having bias against blacks?” in which I detailed the fact that while blacks only make up 13% of the population of the United States they are responsible for more than 50 percent of murders and robberies as well as 40 percent of cop killings.
I had responses from many black people telling me that they were tired of being profiled such as being followed in stores or being pulled over by police without what they believed to be proper cause. I understand that American blacks may be frustrated by these types of things in the same way American Muslims may be bothered for being profiled.
But American Blacks and American Muslims both need to do the same thing. They need to direct their anger and frustration inward at their own communities and those in their communities that are the CAUSE for this profiling.
Support law enforcement officers and get tough on crime
As far as profiling goes these three things MUST be accepted:
Profiling does not cause crime, crime causes profiling.
Profiling does not cause terrorism, terrorism causes profiling.
Profiling is not racism or bigotry but rather it is a common sense approach to crime and terrorism.
We need a president that instead of saying we have a “police problem” needs to say we have a “crime problem in the black community”. The fact is that 99% of cops do their job and are not bad apples. We cannot have a President and groups like Black Lives Matter who whip up an entire racial community against the 1% of bad apples among police to the point where police officers are literally being assassinated.
50 percent of all murders and manslaughters ,52 percent of all robberies and 40 percent of cop killings are committed by blacks even though blacks only make up 13 percent of the population of the United States. How could we blame any police officer for having a bias toward blacks under these conditions?
I am sure that most police officers whether they are black, white, asian or another race could confirm that these statistics are not just numbers – this is what they face on a daily basis as they attempt to do their job in protecting our communities as well as protecting themselves so that they can make it home safely to their families each night.
I was watching the Kelly File with Meghan Kelly on Fox last Thursday night and they were covering the relatively peaceful protest of two black men that were killed by police officers early in the week. I will never forget as the camera caught people running from something only to reveal two police officers laying dead on the ground and Meghan Kelly told them to turn the camera away. Those images will be seared in my mind for the rest of my life.
It is not about a skin color, it is about a culture
It is about a culture where 67% percent of its children are born to single mothers. It is about a culture that while being only 13 percent of the population – it produces 50 percent of all murders and manslaughters in the United States.
“Just because you can have a baby, it doesn’t mean you should,” Lemon said. “Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues.”
This “fatherless” black culture has directly resulted in these staggering crime rates:
Even though blacks only account for roughly 13 percent of the population they account for these percentages of crimes in United States:
50 percent of all murders and manslaughters
52 percent of all robberies
33 percent of all aggravated assaults
32 percent of all forcible rapes
So what this tells us is that we have a culture that represents a small percentage of our population, but disproportionately represents a very high percentage of our crime.
“Criminologists we contacted also told us that those absolute figures — when used correctly — tell only half the story. When talking about risks to society, it is equally important to provide the population-based rate. When we do that, the threat of violent crimes posed by blacks looks larger than that of whites.”
Economics are not an excuse for high black crime rates
The usual response from when many American black culture leaders(including Black Lives Matter leaders) are confronted with these statistics is that “this is all about economics”. If black people just made more money all of these problems would go away – or so we are told.
These crime rates by race and income below prove that the “economics” argument is a faulty answer to problem of disproportionately high rates of crimes among blacks:
Slavery and past injustices are not an excuse either for high black crime rates
One of the biggest problems in the black community is a large percentage of blacks see themselves as victims of injustice such as slavery or racist polices that followed slavery.
Were blacks victimized by whites in America in the past? Absolutely. I have written about the evils the system of slavery that was practiced in the United States:
“On the other hand, the slavery in practice in America was completely different than the slavery that was allowed by the Bible. Chains were a very a common occurrence with slavery in America. It was based on the false ideology that one race was less human than others and they could be enslaved if for no other reason than their race…
Besides American slavery being based on race – it massively failed the two tests of Biblical Slavery that I mentioned above. Africans were kidnapped from their homes. They were treated worse than animals and loaded on to ships without proper food, clothing and shelter. Many Africans died while on Ships coming to America. Many African women were raped by their owners, instead being given the full status of wives. They were often physically abused and even sometimes murdered. But because they were not considered fully human, no punishments were given.”
My point in that post was that while Christians do not have to be ashamed of the slavery that God allowed Israel as a theocracy to practice we should be ashamed of the slavery that America practiced in its earlier days. My larger point though as it relates to this post is that of course we should fully acknowledge as Christians and as Americans the grave injustices committed against blacks in nation’s past.
We should also acknowledge that even after blacks were freed from slavery in America they were often treated unfairly by both government officials and private businesses. This unfair treatment lead to the Civil Rights movement lead by men such as Martin Luther King.
But it is a mistake for any black person today to blame their family, economic or criminal issues past wrongs of the American culture toward blacks. In the decades that followed the civil rights movement the American culture has basically bent over backwards to help blacks in America.
The Liberals War on Poverty actually helped cause the fatherless problem in the black culture
In his article entitled “7 Ways the War on Poverty Destroyed Black Fatherhood” author Nick Chiles writes:
“Welfare programs created disincentives for couples to get married because benefits are reduced as a family’s income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple’s joint income — a reduction of benefits by an average of 10 percent to 20 percent of their total income. Because so many of the other programs low-income women rely on — such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid and public day care — also carry a means test, single mothers are cut off from a wide range of government services if they decide to marry and subsequently raise their income. Over time, for many Black women in low-income neighborhoods, they see the father of their child(ren) as a less reliable breadwinner and partner than the federal government.”
But can we blame the fatherless family’s epidemic completely on welfare programs that dis-incentivized marriage? The answer is no. Ultimately black men and women made their own decision based on economic reasons to leave one of God’s greatest institutions in the dust bin. Black women decided they did not need black men anymore to have a family and black men decided they did not need marriage.
So what does this all have to do with the Dallas shootings?
The root causes of heinous murder of five Dallas police officers and the wounding of seven others has been falsely attributed anger in the black community over the police shootings of black men in Louisiana and Minnesota.
The problem is NOT unjust shootings of blacks by police officers. The problem is rampant out of control crime and a blatant lack of respect in the black community for themselves and for law enforcement officials.
My father always taught me from a very young age to respect my authorities. I was taught to respect my parents, my pastor, my teachers and also police officers. I was told if a police officer pulled me over to do everything he said and answer him with “yes sir and no sir”.
I actually was arrested as a young man when I was 17 years old. I had many speeding tickets and had an address change and did not receive a notice to retake drivers training. Because I did not respond to the notice my license was suspended without my knowledge. I was pulled over for speeding and then the officer asked me to get of car and he asked to me to put my hands behind my back and he placed me under arrest. I submitted respectfully to the officer as my father taught me to do even though I did not understand at the time what was happening.
Today many blacks have horrible and disrespectful attitudes towards police when they are pulled over. Even if they think the reason is unfair – two wrongs never make a right. You let the police officer do what he thinks he needs to do and if you disagree you can have your day in court. That is how our system works.
Because blacks often resist arrest bad things happen. That is just the truth of the matter. Many black men might not have lost their lives or been injured by police if they would have respectfully submitted to the police officer’s authority.
Perhaps these two black men in Louisiana and Minnesota were killed unjustly. But right now we don’t know the whole story. Could the one man have been resisting arrest? Could the other have been moving his hands around when the officer told him to keep his hands where he could see them? We will find out soon enough.
The ugly truth that the black community and black culture must come to grips with is that even if those two shootings were not justified – Police officers have every right to have a bias toward blacks based on the crime statistics I showed previously as well as the statistics offered in this article from the Wall Street Journal:
“Police officers—of all races—are also disproportionately endangered by black assailants. Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.
Some may find evidence of police bias in the fact that blacks make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, compared with their 13% representation in the national population. But as residents of poor black neighborhoods know too well, violent crimes are disproportionately committed by blacks. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there.
Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force.”
How can we blame police officers who may have some bias toward blacks when they constantly hear over the police radio “suspect is black male….”
How can we blame police officers for having even unconscious bias toward blacks in suspicious situations when 40% of cop killers are black even though they only make up 13% of the population?
How can we scream “racist” toward police officers who day in and day out see the utter disrespect that blacks show toward themselves and toward law enforcement officers?
What is the solution to this crisis that we face with the black community and conflicts with police officers?
There are two long term solutions to help reduce crime in the black community.
Long Term Solution 1# – Encourage the rebuilding of the black family unit
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”
I Corinthians 7:2 (KJV)
We need to support ministries and initiatives that encourage abstinence and marriage in the black community. My church supports black ministers that act almost as missionaries to inner cities to do just this. By encouraging strong families with father’s present to love, teach and discipline their children we will help to bring about a new generation of black men that will have greater respect for themselves and for their authorities (parents, teachers, and police officers).
Long Term Solution 2# – Discourage dependence on government
“For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”
II Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)
We need to discourage dependence on government and instead encourage self-reliance and this applies not only to the black community but to all races in America. People need to learn the value of working hard for their own money and not expect government handouts. Blacks, whites and all races need to learn to be content even if they are poorer.
But while the longer term solutions are being implemented we must face the realities of today with broken families and high crime rates in the black community.
Below are two short term solutions that should be implemented now.
Short Term Solution 1# – Get blacks back into church
“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.“
Hebrews 10:25 (KJV)
Even if blacks come from broken homes there are solutions we can try to help in the short term. I don’t have the stats handy but I am sure they out there. I have read before that blacks that are raised in church and faithfully attend church even with single mothers have a much lower chance of getting into crime and other types of trouble. As Christians we need to encourage our black neighbors to get back to church. The Church I attend while being primarily white does have blacks as well and we encourage all races to attend our church. This is the way all churches should be.
Ultimately we want to see blacks, as we do all people, come to Christ. A black man who has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior in his heart and wants to serve God is going to be far less likely to get into crime than a black man without Christ. He is going to want to get married and raise his family in a way that honors God.
Short Term Solution #2 – Support law enforcement officers and get tough on crime
“2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Romans 13:2-4 (KJV)
I don’t care if you are white, black, Hispanic or Asian. If a police officer tells you to do something – you do it. If he asks you a question – you answer it. If he tell you to keep your hands where he can see them – you do it. If he arrests you – you allow him to do that. If you feel you were mistreated – save it for the judge. If “stop and frisk” measures reduce crime in any city – than we need to support these measures. And the most important thing is – we need to ALWAYS given our police officers the benefit of the doubt in any use of force situation. They risk their lives day in and day out for our safety as a culture and we owe them that respect and appreciation for what they do.
The black community does not have an economic problem – it has a family problem and it has a respect problem as a result of breakdown of the family.
I pray that God will be with the families of the five police officers that were killed and the seven others that were wounded by this mad man.
I also pray that our nation and especially the black community will wake up to the fact that the problem is not with police officers – but it is with the black community itself. The black community needs to look inward and do some serious self-reflecting.
As whites and other races, we cannot go in and fix the black community. All we can do is support black leaders who want to do the things I mentioned above whether it is financially supporting their ministries or just offering them moral support and of course keeping them in our prayers.