Rev. Rich Lusk (RL) writes;

It is not possible to take 16th century Reformational political theory and drop it into an American context unaltered anymore than it is possible to take the law of Moses and drop it into an American context unaltered.

BLMc responds;

I suspect there exist a few people who might argue that it is possible to take 16th century Reformational political theory and drop it into an American context unaltered, just as there may be a few people who would argue that it is possible to take the law of Moses and drop it into an American context unaltered. However, the number of such people on both counts are miniscule. As such, I take this opening salvo of Lusk to be a case where he is poisoning the well at the outset as against anyone who disagrees with what he says as he continues this missive. Lusk alone is the fountainhead of wisdom and anybody who would contradict him is a guilty of of being an antiquated nekulturny.

However, it is possible to take principles of 16th century political theory and advocate that the American context alter in order to adhere to a superior idea. After all, Rev. Lusk certainly doesn’t believe that the American context is inviolable in terms of political solutions that might find their origin from the 16th century political theorizing.

RL writes;

We cannot do with the Reformers what theonomists want to do with Moses because when it comes to politics, context matters and prudence is always necessary. Of course, biblical law should be an authoritative source of political wisdom and principles in every society. And we can certainly learn from and implement certain features from Reformational political theology – their political work is not irrelevant. But the American context is different — it’s different from ancient Israel and its different from 16th century Geneva.

BLMc responds,

Here RL takes gives back with his right hand what he took originally with his left hand. First, Rich said “you can’t use that antiquated stuff,” and now he says, “well, we can use some of it.”

Second, here Lusk invokes the use of “prudence” but of course we respond with; “prudence by what standard?” I suspect Rev. Lusk and Rev. McAtee would disagree strenuously on what is and is not prudent in this situation.

Finally, it is a rather Captain Obvious statement to observe; “The American context is different.” Does it pain anyone else when people blurt out painfully obvious statements? Yes, Rich, everyone who has a pulse realizes “The American context is different.” Does Rich really think that people exist who don’t realize today’s America is different than Calvin’s 16th century Geneva?

RL writes;

American problems call for uniquely American solutions. We have to deal with America as she actually exists in 2025. We have to play the hand we’re dealt. To give a couple examples: The American founders developed a system of limited government, checks and balances, federalism, individual rights grounded in nature and nature’s God, etc. We cannot simultaneously say, “the constitution is dead” AND honor our political forefathers. This is one reason why I have questioned the notion of a “Christian prince” in an American context — a “Christian prince” seems fitting in a European context, but not America. A Christian President, a Christian Commander-in-Chief — those would be fully American. But not a Christian prince.

BLMc responds,

1.) The first three sentences are more “No Duh” filler sentences.

2.) In terms of Rev. Lusk’s example;

a.) We can simultaneously say the constitution is dead (and has been since at least 1860) while still honoring our political forefathers. I guarantee you that if our political forefathers could be reanimated they would agree that their constitution is dead while hoping that we would honor them by agreeing with them that their constitution is dead and prompting us to return to the principles that made for their constitution.

b.) We could note that more than a few of our political forefathers wanted to make George Washington the Christian King of America.

c.) A Christian prince could easily be an American concept. Germany once had a Kaiser and the German context didn’t force them to continue with that. The same is true of Russia and any number of other contexts. The American context is not sovereign over what might need to be done in order to bring about ordered change.

d.) Now if we were to talk about the American context and moving forward I would suggest that the American context yields a perfect context for different secession movements that would break up these once united States. If we did that then we could have both Christian princes and Christian republics.

e.) The idea that the American context can’t support the idea of a “Christian Prince” is pure poppycock. Our Christian Prince could operate in the context of a Constitutional Monarchy. In such a way we might retain both a Christian Prince and Christian Commander in Chief.

RL writes;

There’s no need for Americans to hanker after European titles that we left behind a long time ago. We should work within the system our founding fathers gave us (and of course that system has provisions for change and adaptation). And yes, I’ve read Caldwell — I know we have gone through several constitutional revolutions, and the civil rights regime has created a new de facto order. But even rolling back what needs to be rolled back from the civil rights era has to be done in a way that works with and within our existing institutions.

BLMc responds;

1.) The idea of “Christian Prince” is hardly uniquely European.

2.) Again… we have not worked within the system our founding fathers gave us since 1860. (I too have read Caldwell, and Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens on the US Constitution.)

3.) Why does needed change have to work with and within our existing institutions? One could reasonably argue that if the existing institutions have bottomed out, then they need to go. Of course, one could also argue that the existing institutions can also be maintained while emptying them of their former function and filling them with a new function that gives the illusion of continuity, which is what was done after circa 1860, circa 1918, irca 1944, and and circa 1964. This is that for which Rev. Lusk seems to be arguing.

RL continues;

Another example: White Christian Nationalists will complain that no one accuses Japan of racism for wanting to be Japanese, so why is it wrong for whites to want to have a country of their own? Why is ethnonationalism ok in some countries but not others? But this misses the point, and the problem. American and Japanese history are entirely different. Racial identity politics will always function differently in America than anywhere else. America was multiracial from the days of the earliest settlers. We had black slaves here. We had Amerindians. America has to deal with the race issue differently from other nations because we have a different history. Advocating ethnonationalism here is a very different thing because our national story is very different.

BLMc responds,

Now, we begin to get to the nut of the matter for Rev. Lusk I believe.

1.) The question; “If Japan is not racist for wanting to be Japanese then why is it wrong for whites to have a country their own,” does not in the least miss the point. Not in the least. It is a legitimate question to consider and that especially in the American context that Rich finds so controlling. The American context finds these united States to be 88% white in 1970. In 1980 these united States was 83% white. In 1990 these united States were 80% white. It would seem the American context, per Lusk’s parameters of prudence, requires us to pursue a ethnonationalism that will once again stoke up these kind of prior percentages. If anything, it is Lusk who is ignoring the American context by suggesting that we shouldn’t pay attention to the necessity to be a overwhelmingly predominantly white nation.

3.) That American was biracial from its earliest days is just fairy tale talk. Sure, there was in these united States a sprinkling of this and that from other racial origins but biracial (really multiracial) in the sense of India? Never! This kind of advocacy on the part of Lusk is straight out of the Loving vs. Virginia Cultural Marxism playbook. A glimpse at the  Naturalization Act of 1790 in America bears out that Lusk is either ignorant or lying. In that Naturalization Act, the US Congress, with prudence, implemented requirements that doubtless took into account the American context. In that law naturalization was limited to “free white persons… of good character. Interestingly enough, for decades the US courts also associated whiteness with Christianity and thus excluded Muslim immigration into these united States until the 20th century (1944).

It is my conviction that Lusk is the one guilty of not taking into account the American context and is really suggesting that the American context that is really important in his opinion is the post civil-rights / post Hart-Celler Immigration act American context.

RL continues;

And before jumping to conclusions about what I am saying and not saying, I fully believe that we need to enforce our borders and deport illegals, we need to stop anti-white racialism, we need to continue dismantling DEI, we need to bring critical manufacturing back home, etc. But none of those things require us to frame the issues in terms of race. And none of those things will make America monoracial. They are all common sense proposals that serve the good of the nation. Period. Racializing everything is not the way forward.

BLMc responds;

1.) If we, per Rev. Lusk’s encouraging

Deport 30 million illegals
Stop anti-white racialism so that minorities don’t receive quotas
Dismantle DEI

This would mean that white ethno-nationalism is gaining traction. If this were to occur the race pimps would go insane and threaten to burn the house down. The race pimps would take these very actions that Rev. Lusk embraces and scream that America was turning back into a Klan nation. We wouldn’t need to frame any of this in terms of race in order for it to be framed by the left as a matter of race. Does Rev. Lusk think that the minority community that is so prevalent in the rank and file of the Cultural Marxist religion are going to silently sit by and not scream “RACISM” at the top of their lungs if this Euro-centric Christian policy was pursued?

2.) It may be true that none of these things will make America monoracial but it sure as Hades will once again put White Christians back in the overwhelming majority. Honestly, the absence of 30 million illegal immigrants, combined with the end of DEI WOKE and the roll back of the civil rights act (which was racial communism) would undo everything that the multicultural/multiracial left wants for this country. Rev. Lusk is just not being realistic in his analysis here.

3.) It strikes that Rich’s thinking is built on the mythology that says that anti-white racism (DEI) can be halted without the presence of white Christian consciousness which would drive whites realizing they have a need to act in harmony together in the attempt to replace/destroy them.

RL writes;

Trump won twice (or thrice), and did so without racialization. In fact, he sought to build a coalition that included blacks and Hispanics, and had more success than any other recent politician — and that’s because he knows coalitions are required in any movement if it’s going to be successful. The left *wanted* him to do racial identity politics, but he refused.

BLMc responds,

Like Nixon in 1968, Trump used a racial dog whistle in being elected. He talked about immigrants eating pets in Ohio. In the past he talked about the fact that we were getting all the immigrants from “outhouse countries.” It is true that Trump refused to give the Left an issue. He avoided that by using a dog whistle and by convincing the comparatively small number of minorities per their total numbers to vote for him due to the fact that this comparatively small number understood it really was in their best interest for the US to be a predominantly White Christian nation.

RL finishes;

Trump’s genius is that he’s shown a way forward, a way the right can win. I don’t see why some people want to mess it up by making it all about race. “White Christian Nationalism” is to “Christian Nationalism” what “Make White America Great Again” is to MAGA. Conservative blacks often point out that the best way to deal with race in America is to just stop talking about it. And I tend to agree: if we focus on building a *Christian* nation here (as opposed to, say, a *white* nation), the race issue will take care of itself.

BLMc responds,

1.) The whole idea of Nationalism (Christian or otherwise) implies race. Nationalism, coming as it does from the word “nation,” requires a geographic area populated by a people of a common descent or ancestor. When Rich argues that we need to lose the “White” in “White Christian Nationalism,” he is in essence arguing for propositional nationalism — that is a nationalism that is bound together not by blood but by a set of ephemeral and ever shifting ideas.

2.) The violent crime figure numbers tell me that “just not talking about race” is not a winning proposition.

In the end Rev. Lusk offers a solution that solves nothing. To be honest, in my estimation Lusk’s offering reads as if he has a plan to “Christianize the Tower of Babel.” Also, Lusk’s offering could be easily read as prioritizing the post-Civil Rights American context as the true American context that is to qualify and guide all action taken.

I resolutely reject this political analysis from Lusk. It’s not true. It’s not wise. It’s not Christian.