It has been more than four years since the death of George Floyd, yet the Christian discourse on race has only managed to devolve. Progressives, of course, never stopped their rants about racism. In the conservative world, the mere subject of race is — to this day — treated like an unapproachable leper. Even conservative-minded evangelical publishers are reticent to publish a vague, often incoherent article on the subject. Yet the Christian view of race is more complex than a simple restatement of Galatians 3:28. Though it was hardly articulated in public, the Christians who understood race as an anthropological subject remained in the background. Due to external pressure, the church’s discourse was suppressed before it could start. Any Christian who wanted to explore the subject in writing would find himself at a crossroads before he even picked up his pen. He could adopt the Critical Race Theorists’ premise that race is a social construct, or he could adopt a Right-wing framework where race primarily references a biological reality. His article would see the light of day if he chose the former definition. To choose the latter would be committing the “sin of racism.”
At the end of the day, the Left won. Christian figureheads — including the conservative ones — were quick to anathematize anyone who defined race in a way that opposed this consensus. The discussion continued to devolve. Race could only ever be discussed from within the framework of Leftism, forbidden to leave its cage. Even the sciences suffered, ousting the discoverer of DNA, while men like Francis Collins redefined terms to be more conducive to theistic evolution. What could a theologian hope to gain by opposing this accord of the elite?
After years of suppression, substantive discussion finally started seeping into the mainstream. Panicked professors started writing about the dangers of “kinism” in response. Others started manufacturing stories about “woke rightism.” But the cat had been let out of the bag. The people who believed that race was more than a construct were stepping back into the light. Race was once more used to define reality.
Defining Race Realism
Among dissidents, the definition of race has undergone numerous stages of refinement. Interrelated terms like ethnicity, culture, nation, and race have been subjected to all sorts of discussion among the Right, producing a wealth of knowledge. Among these definitions, a commonality can easily be identified: that race is real. The concept of race realism, therefore, can hardly even be considered an ideology. It starts with the simple acknowledgment that race represents a biological reality. Then, realism taps into the deep wells of conservatism, arguing that natural differences are real and ought to be maintained.
Race realism is the recognition that mankind is divided into distinct races, that the differences between the races are large and relatively permanent, and that this racial diversity ought to be acknowledged, celebrated, and defended.
Opponents of this simple proposition will often attack the definition on two points: 1) That race represents a real, natural division, and 2) that racial differences ought to be preserved. These two angles represent an attack on “what is” and “what should be,” respectively. Historically, conservatism has thrived on these two questions, while theologians throughout history have paid heed to these tenets. It seems that in recent years, however, even the otherwise conservative-minded Christians are all too quick to abandon their principles and their history, launching a flurry of attacks on their own tradition. To these attacks, we respond.
Racial Reality
Race realism is not the pinnacle of Right-wing thought. Rather, it is the bare minimum for contributing to the conversation. There are certainly discussions to be had about the political and spiritual implications of race, but if you cannot affirm that a person’s race is real in a physical or anthropological sense, then you will need to defend your own position first.
Recently developed racial ideologies deny that race has any meaningful physical substance. They say that race is merely a proxy for factors such as environment, socioeconomic status, and culture. These same Critical Race Theorists argue that race is just a construct. Modern liberal frameworks, designed to emphasize equality, destroy natural differences in the process. In today’s world, to affirm the real, genetic presence of race is to defy liberalism.
Perhaps this is why conservative critiques of race realism are often confusing and disjointed. They must borrow from someone else’s worldview to critique the Right. It was precisely this phenomenon that made Doug Wilson’s rejoinder such a disarticulated article. About two and a half weeks after Michael Spangler’s initial thesis on Christian race realism, Wilson published a response, attempting to argue that realism doesn’t match reality. Spangler has already responded to these arguments in detail, so I will not repeat all of them here. Rather, my reason for mentioning this article is to highlight the ineffectiveness of the discourse. In the article, Wilson argues that
“…culture is the shaper of what [Spangler] is calling race, and what I would call ethnic groups, tribes, or people groups.”
“…culture is what drives ethnic distinctives on the physical level.”
A plain reading of Wilson’s arguments allows us to infer two points: 1) that race does not exist in any meaningful, biological way, and 2) that race is a product of the culture we construct. Both of these points, if conceded, would land us squarely in the camp of the Left. What we have here is a case of putting the egg before the chicken. Wilson fails to understand that the culture cannot precede the cultivators. Without white people, how would white culture exist?
It should be obvious how such a framework radically alters the principles of conservatism. The great replacement only becomes a threat insofar as it reflects a threat to culture. DEI is only a threat insofar as it shapes culture for the worse. The question is obvious: How can we hope to preserve our customs when we so fervently disenfranchise the lineage that made it up? But to ask this question is useless, for Wilson has already rejected the premise: that race is a reality, not a construct.
The Politics of Race
The second argument assumes a positive answer to the first. If we acknowledge that race is simply a fact of nature, then what should we do about it? For some odd reason, conservative critics routinely attempt to answer the subsequent question despite unequivocally rejecting the premise. It is as if they need an insurance policy for their own points. These arguments rarely need a response, but I thought I would illustrate the form to which they are often consigned. Fear.
The conservative fear of nationalism is not intended to function as a holistic worldview. Its purpose is to suppress, not to answer. As a result, there is no argument to debate. Like dealing with an online, malcontented feminist, the argument is never about facts but about how she perceives those facts. No doubt, the cause for this devolution in debate can partly be attributed to these same feminist impulses among learned men. However, it is also important to note how the tactic of suppression becomes an ideology unto itself. From DEI to the Civil Rights Act, the politics of fear is an attempt to suppress nature, not conserve it. It is an ideology designed to muzzle the God-given instincts inherent in all of humanity. They acknowledge that even if race is proven to be real, rather than a construct, they would still maintain the dam out of fear of a catastrophe.
In any case, any politics built on race realism is a disastrous mistake. The existence of difference among humanity—even genetic difference—is not a result of the Fall. But alienation and hostility based upon such differences is, and it results from the active cultivation of race-consciousness.
Setting the strawman aside (Christian race realists do not believe that race is a result of the fall), we can see that from Littlejohn’s perspective, any sort of racial-political acknowledgment is considered a threat. Once again, we see that the mere reality of race endangers the prevailing liberal frameworks. In order for rootless cosmopolitanism to maintain itself, natural instincts must be suppressed so that colorblind civic creeds may take their place. Littlejohn unwittingly argues for nationalism without the nation; for a people, but without the humans.
I would love nothing more than to discuss the political applications. Race realism, in its simplest form, provides us with a wide range of options to achieve our goals. But if you want to debate the particulars of racial politics or warn against certain strategies, you will, at minimum, need to adopt the premise of the Right and affirm the corporeal nature of race. The ham-handed accusers and fearmongers on the Left quickly find out that their hollow points will never reach the Right ears.
More Than Realism
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15:22
Men have tried to disenchant Christianity before. Some say that Adam, the progenitor of the human race, was merely a figurative representative, downplaying his physical role. Some say that Jesus’ race doesn’t matter — that his lineage is largely irrelevant so long as he fulfilled the law. But the Bible does not allow us to dismiss matters of race and biology so casually. Adam was the real, physical father of humanity, while Jesus was more than just the spiritual son of David. To relegate this lineage to “culture” would be a blunder of serious proportions.
I am well aware that with the rise of modernity, we often have to take steps to re-affirm our natural humanity. Words that describe natural phenomena become twisted into constructs. Concepts such as gender and race are no longer compelled to reflect the underlying biological reality. Transhumanism tells us that we can force nature to do our bidding — that we can shape human instinct to our liking. Only the most arrogant of ideologies could propose such a preposterous idea.
The striving of a race towards its own physical type is one of the great facts with which one cannot tamper by trying to substitute ideals of amalgamation with types totally alien, as Liberalism and Communism tried to do during the reign of rationalism.
Francis P. Yockey, “Imperium”
Nevertheless, the humility required to understand our natural limitations can sometimes be abused. Race is never less than our biology, but it is also something more than that. The rationalist may try to reduce his love for his family down to a genetic or instinctual nature, but he will always have an irrational component left over. There are things that science can explain about humanity, but there are also things that it can’t. Humans cannot be reduced to their biological makeup, so race cannot be reduced to the sum of its genetic components. Consequently, the concept of race has to be understood as both a physical and a spiritual phenomenon. In philosophical terms, race could be understood as a sort of metaphysical matter.
Race is entirely metaphysical, and in the metaphysical blueprint of the race lies not just the properties inherent in the individuals belonging to the race, but it is an energetic and informational depository of all who before us made up the race. It is a record of the race life, of the life of our forebears.
Ephesians 6:1-3 reminds us that the man who honors his progenitors will enjoy a long life. We affirm that this is true from a religious and spiritual sense, but we can also observe this from a physical, natural sense. This is not merely a promise concerning a joyous spiritual life but also a generality pointing to a long, corporeal life. Charles Hodge interprets the injunction this way: “Honour thy father and mother; this is the prime commandment, the first in importance among those relating to our social duties; and it has the specific promise annexed. It shall be well with thee on the earth.”5Charles Hodge, “Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians” – Chapter VI
The temptation in recent years has been to over-spiritualize the subject: to think in abstractions rather than the real world. We think that because we have the power to end lineages in a single generation — to start a new race on a hypothetical island — nature no longer has any relevance. But as liberalism loses its luster, the uniting power of creedal politics is called into question as well. We expand our definitions of nation and culture, hoping to rationalize the world instead of meeting reality where it is. Like a young woman caught up in the charms of transgenderism, we not only hate the things we can’t change, but we eventually deny it exists at all.
Charles Hodge, “Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians” – Chapter VI
Author Information:
Unconscionable Admin — Founder of the Unconscionable Life, he is a Christian, a husband, and a father. Politically, he is a Christian Nationalist. Ecclesiastically, he is a reformed Presbyterian. In general, he is a dissident.
Leave a Reply