This showed up in my newsfeed today as coming from Rev. Chris Gordon. I find it so interesting because both Gordon and his conversational partner here, Dr. Stephen Wolfe embrace Thomistic Natural Law thinking and yet they are vehemently disagreeing on the effects Christianity should have when landing among different social orders. So, they are both Thomists, philosophically, and yet they are at distinct loggerheads here.
A couple more things, first, Rev. Gordon teed this up by writing;
“Most important moment in my CN discussion with Stephen Wolfe:”
Chris clearly thinks he had Wolfe on the ropes here in this part of the interview.
Chis Gordon: Most people in CA are mocha, a mix of different ethnicities, do these people have a homeland?
Stephen Wolfe: California is unique though. If I stayed in CA…I don’t know. I bring this stuff up because of the importance of it…do you have a homeland? When I hear the stories of old CA…horseback riding in hills of Napa, 22 riffles…there is a sense of loss…
Bret Interjects:
1.) Gordon here clearly concedes that race and ethnicity are realities. After all, you can’t get to a “mocha, a mix of different ethnicities” without acknowledging that there were different ethnicities that existed that are now mixed.
2.) Second, I would say that if the decided majority of California was a thorough mix of different ethnicities than the homeland for those who were a thorough mix of different ethnicities would be California. It would be the homeland for those who had successfully embraced the Babel project that God judged in Genesis 11. California would be the homeland of the multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith people.
3.) Notice Wolfe’s response is to say that the previous people who occupied California have been run out by the new multicult crowd who now owns California, and that there is a certain sadness about that. I don’t know how anybody could disagree that it is sad when a particular people group is extinguished in favor of another people group whose bond is established by the fact that they have no bond except the bond of no bond.
Chris Gordon; The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God. Is this really the message that Christians want to give people, that previous generations lost all that was good with horses and guns, and that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians? Or might we seek to live in peace and harmony in this age together but with a distinctively Christian message that elevates us to a better salvific good, that God does give people a true homeland together in his kingdom, the church as Christ’s body, tearing down walls of hostility until we reach the heavenly land together of a multitude of nations worshipping God?
Bret responds,
1.) I’ll start at the end of Chris’ peroration here. One simply cannot have a multitude of nations worshipping God in the heavenly land if those nations have been bred out of existence, so that all that exists is a polyglot Babel stew in the land that is not yet heaven.
2.) As to this sentiment by Chris:
“The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God.”
All I can say is that it is contradictory to what John Calvin taught;
“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”
John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)
The Reformed faith does welcome all to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” It does not say that there is no grace for the mulatto, mestizo, or whasian. All men everywhere are commanded to repent and if they do repent they are members of the Kingdom of God. However, just as repenting doesn’t change one’s gender, so repenting doesn’t change one’s ethnicity or race. Differences remain and those differences should be acknowledged.
I have a friend who Pastors a church in a large urban area. This church is comprised of different ethnicities and races and yet this Pastor friend tells me that he repeatedly tells his flock, from the pulpit, that even though they are all one in Christ that when it comes to marriage they should not intermarry because race/ethnicity matters.
3.) As to this portion by Rev. Gordon;
Is this really the message that Christians want to give people … that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians?
I would say the answer to that question is, “yes, that is the Christian message.” Just as the stranger and alien could never own land in ancient Israel because they were not Hebrews so Christianity teaches that it is not ideal to give your nation as a homeland to those who do not belong to your nation by way of descent. Chris really need to consider reading James Hoffmeier’s book on immigration to understand that Christianity has never taught that “Johnny come lately” people groups belong with us. Until Chris does read Hoffmeier maybe he’ll consider this quote from Robert Putnam on the subject;
“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”
Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture
I am of the conviction that what Gordon is giving us here is a Anabaptist paradigm. The Anabaptist were (and remain) the great levelers and what Rev. Gordon is calling for here is for leveling, whether he realizes it or not. Gordon is offering here a “All colors bleed into one” Christianity. He is, as Calvin describes above, a flighty and scatterbrained dreamer.” If Gordon gets his way the result will not be some Christian paradise composed of a Babel organized social order. If Gordon gets his way he will get a social order such as described by Putnam in the quote above.
Finally, note here that Gordon, who is R2K, is doing what R2K says should never be done by ministers. He is getting out of his lane talking about an issue that isn’t a “Gospel issue.” However, if Gordon wants to insist that this is a “Gospel issue” notice once again how liberal/progressive R2K is when it takes up social issues. R2K forever wants to present itself as uncommitted on political issues but here is Gordon being the raging liberal.
I’m going to push back against both Brett and Chris Gordon.
Bret quotes Calvin as saying: “Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us…” with the emphasis on “mixing up nature”, but there isn’t as much of a difference in nature between some of these groups as there is a difference of culture. But before I get accused of sounding like Doug Wilson or Ligon Duncan, let’s look at the later part of the Calvin quote and hone in on the words “the preservation of decency and peace among us”. Can anyone say that the influx and mixing of latins has the preserved decency and peace among us? Or has it led to dilution and weakening of white European Protestants? Most importantly, are white European Protestants allowed to preserve both their bloodlines and their culture, or even to talk about it? Chris Gordon effectively answers in the negative while Bret not only answers in the positive but has been talking about these matters for at least two decades. Gordon’s position isn’t exactly antithetical but in many ways it’s worse because it’s insidious, it joins with the antichrist zeitgeist and undermines any notion of preservation of bloodlines and culture and subtly points the boney finger and anyone who dares to raise an eyebrow about dilution and assimilation.
Chad,
I don’t see anything here I would disagree with so I am not sure how it is pushing back against my position.
Thanks for the comment
Separate and distinct from my other comment on this matter of like to add that the “A” in WASP is from a mixture of two people’s… Angles and Saxons (with a minority component of the Jutes and others).
Though they were warring over territory, political control, and natural resources, yet they were essentially one in race and their vocation as seafaring men. Centuries later they were joined together in the faith as one people.
To me this melding seems to point to the genetic fact that there are three founts of bloodstock, the tribes of Shem, Ham and Japheth, the whites, the yellows and the blacks. Any geneticist can tell you this. It cannot be reduced beyond these three. They are the building blocks of all mankind, or as the Scripture says: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” (Gen 10:32)
The Anglo-Saxons were a group of Germanic peoples who migrated to Britain from northern Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands starting in the early 5th century AD, after the Roman Empire’s withdrawal from the island around 410 AD. Their origins lie in the tribal groups known as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians, who lived along the North Sea coast in what is now Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, and Jutland.
These migrations were driven by factors like population pressure, economic opportunities, and possibly flooding in their low-lying homelands. They were invited as mercenaries by British leaders to help defend against Pictish and Scottish raids, but soon settled permanently, establishing kingdoms like Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria. Archaeological evidence, such as brooches and burial sites, and texts like Bede’s Ecclesiastical History (731 AD) confirm their gradual integration with the Romano-British population.
Their culture blended Germanic traditions—pagan beliefs, warrior ethos, and Old English language—with local Celtic and Roman influences, laying the foundation for early medieval England. Genetic studies suggest they contributed significantly to the modern English population, though intermingling with native Britons was common. By the 7th century, their kingdoms were Christianized, shaping England’s identity until the Viking invasions and Norman Conquest of 1066.
Again… nothing here I disagree with. Buchanan in one of his books makes a similar point about America being a distinct nation precisely because so many of the European cousins married.
I have no problem w/ ethnicities of a shared racial origin marrying as long as they understand that there may be cultural hurdles that they will have to cross.