Declaration on the Error of Egalitarianism and its Effect on Society, the Church, and Related Matters

* THE FOLLOWING DECLARATION REPRESENTS THE GENERAL VIEWS OF THE SESSION OF HERITAGE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (HRPC) ONLY AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE FULL VIEWS OF THE COVENANT REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH DENOMINATION OR ANY OTHER DENOMINATION, ORGANIZATION, OR BODY OF CHURCHES, THOUGH IT IS THE DESIRE OF HRPC THAT THIS DECLARATION WOULD BE HELPFUL TO AND EVEN ADOPTED BY OTHER CHURCHES, PRESBYTERIES, AND DENOMINATIONS. THIS DECLARATION IS NOT A BINDING DOCUMENT WITH CREEDAL AUTHORITY BUT IS FOR INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIVE PURPOSES AND IS SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE REFINEMENT IN THE FUTURE.

Declaration on the Error of Egalitarianism and its Effect on the Family, Society, the Church, and Related Matters

In 2005, the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (CRPC) unanimously adopted Distinctives summarizing what sets her apart from other Presbyterian bodies. Under “Civil Magistrates,” the CRPC affirms: “We further acknowledge that God’s work at the Tower of Babel and His gathering of men into distinct tribes, nations, cultures, races, and language groups has its divine purpose in hindering the growth of ungodliness.” [https://covref.org/distinctives/]

The following set of affirmations and denials from the Eldership of Heritage Reformed Presbyterian Church (HRPC) builds upon this distinctive in order to provide clarity and to counter the destructive error of Egalitarianism (which has various beliefs and ideologies related to it, such as liberalism, feminism, globalism and the like).

We wish to stress from the outset that these gatherings and distinctions of tribes, nations, cultures, races, and language groups refer specifically to the civil realm and for civic or societal cohesion and well-being of families, tribes, nations, and races. Indeed, the CRPC’s statement from 2005 is listed under “Civil Magistrates”, underscoring the distinction between the calling and duties of magistrates in the kingdoms and nations of this world, and the calling and duties of pastors and elders who serve as under-shepherds in the kingdom of God, in which there is Spiritual unity and Spiritual equality for all who are in Christ from every tribe, tongue, nation, and race.

Therefore, these God-ordained gatherings and groupings do not and must not create divisions or racial hierarchies in local or particular churches, nor in the universal church (see Chapters 25 and 26 in our Westminster Confession of Faith). Sinful partiality must not be shown in the body of Christ (James 2:1-9). No one should be refused church membership in the local church simply because they are of a different race or nationality. This is because all are Spiritually one in Christ and equal in His body, Church, and Kingdom of grace, regardless of one’s race, nationality, or natural abilities (Gal. 3:28, 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:11), and all are to share in one another’s Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12; WCF 26.1; H.C. 55). Christ’s kingdom is not established on the civic and natural principles God has ordained for the nations and kingdoms of this world. Rather, God’s kingdom is established by Christ’s covenant blood and outpoured Spirit given to His elect people from every tribe, tongue, nation and race (Matt. 28:18-20; Gal. 3:26-29; Eph. 2:14-22, 4:1-6, etc.). Entrance, standing, and position in God’s kingdom and holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9) is not based upon the blood, race, or merit of men (John 1:12-13), which would only condemn us, but upon the atoning blood and meritorious work of God’s Son Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh and who alone can save us.

With that made clear, consider the destructive error of Egalitarianism. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/egalitarianism]  defines Egalitarianism as:

1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs.

and

2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

[Merriam-Webster says that this word was first used in 1874.]

We note up front that no one should be treated unjustly according to the standard of justice set forth in God’s law in the Bible. The problem is that a radical Egalitarianism (which does not follow the standard of God’s law) runs through much of our civil state and society today, and a radical Egalitarian impulse has even spread into some Evangelical, Protestant, and Reformed churches to one degree or another. By “civil state and society” we are not referring to the church or kingdom of God, but instead to civil government, politics, laws, businesses, military, academic institutions, etc., along with our social mores and predispositions or presuppositions. To give an example, consider feminism, which demands “equal rights” for women and “equal opportunities” in society, politics, and economics or the workforce. Yet just over 100 years ago when women’s suffrage (to vote in elections) was being debated and demanded by some, many women in the United States recognized they did not have a “right” to vote or hold office, and many women did not want the vote because they would then be responsible to be informed and involved in the political arena. Yet today, if you question whether women ought to have the vote, your Christian character will be questioned not only by unbelievers but by many Christians. This is owing to the Egalitarian impulse, or in other words, the social mores and “knee-jerk reaction” is that there must be some kind of sinful despising of women to even question the propriety of women voting. Even the Church has been too catechized by the Egalitarian spirit of our age rather than by the Scriptures, the light of nature, and the spirit and teaching of the Church (including the Reformed Church) down through the ages. American Presbyterians in general, such as Charles Hodge and R.L. Dabney, opposed women’s suffrage. PCA Minister Zach Garris’s excellent book Masculine Christianity summarizes our modern Egalitarian and Feminist society:

In order to fully understand our modern feminist society, we must understand the various waves of feminism in the 19th and 20th centuries. These movements were so successful that no one today has to argue for a woman’s right to vote or hold political office. In fact, to raise an objection against them would be met with utter shock and abhorrence from anyone listening. The same goes for criticizing a woman for placing her children in daycare so she can pursue a career outside the home…. First-wave feminism sought to make the economic, political, and social status of women equal to that of men, with its chief goal being the political right for all women to vote. This movement was led by women such as Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906) and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902).

…Many conservative Christians today praise first-wave feminism and distinguish it from later and even more radical forms, but this is an error. First-wave feminism at its roots was an anti-Christian movement, and its desire for cultural change was driven, not by biblical Christianity, but by secular progressivism. The later forms of feminism built on the first wave’s radical philosophical foundation. First-wave feminism adopted an egalitarian view of men and women that stemmed from the most radical wing of the Enlightenment, that of the Jacobins. The Jacobin party was the political faction of the French Revolution that carried out the Reign of Terror in 1793–1794. Jacobin “equality” stands in opposition to the British tradition of equality before the law. Whereas the British (and thus American) view of equality entailed equal treatment under the law, the Jacobin view meant sameness. This is an equality that flattens the world by tearing down hierarchy and role differences. The 18th-century American theologian R.L. Dabney described this as “mechanical equality,” and today it is known as “functional equality” or egalitarianism. While the Jacobins of the French Revolution were not feminists, their radical egalitarianism was later applied by feminists to gender roles.

While the British and American legal systems and philosophies were influenced heavily by Christianity, the opposite is true of the Jacobins, who were revolting against Christianity. The roots of these two views have relevance for today. Secular progressivism, which is anti-Christian, affirms egalitarianism. Egalitarians despise authority and therefore scorn hierarchy. They begin by rejecting God’s authority, and they in turn reject biblical authority structures. On the other hand, biblical, historic Christianity affirms hierarchy. God holds authority over all creation, and He has set certain authority structures in place. Men have authority over their wives in the marriage covenant, parents have authority over their children, elders have authority over the congregation in Christ’s church, and civil officials have authority over citizens. Of course, authority can be abused, but this does not change the fact that authority still exists. While all humans are equal in the sense that all are fallen in Adam and are in need of God’s grace, God has given different roles to different people in society. Christian equality requires us to treat everyone with love, but it does not undermine the authority structures that God has set in place. Rather, Christian love affirms God’s authority structures and those God has placed in authority over us.

Jacobin equality came to America with its adoption by the radical Quakers and Unitarians. The Quakers, while originating in Britain, abandoned historic Christianity and embraced egalitarianism early on. And it is no surprise that the Unitarians—who rejected the diversity of the Trinity—also embraced egalitarianism regarding human relations. In abandoning orthodox Christianity, the Quakers and Unitarians adopted the egalitarianism of the radical wing of the Enlightenment. And these two groups helped lead the charge for women’s rights in America.

The leaders of the first-wave feminist movement were not orthodox Christians but heretics and radicals. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was raised Presbyterian but became an atheist and attacked the Bible’s teaching on gender roles. Another feminist leader, Lucy Stone (1818–1893), was a Unitarian. And Susan B. Anthony was a Quaker who most likely became a Unitarian later in life. (Unitarians were also influential in the 19th-century feminist movement in Britain.)

Both Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were heavily influenced by the Quakers, also known as the Society of Friends. The Quakers were one of the four major British groups to settle America, coming to the Delaware Valley in the 17th century. However, they were a radical group that embraced egalitarianism and pacifism, followed the “inner light,” and rejected the practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Quakerism’s connections with first-wave feminism can be seen in that it was one of the first groups to allow women to serve as ministers. Many Quakers also embraced abolitionism and temperance.

Stanton became an admirer of Lucretia Mott (1793–1880), a Quaker feminist, and together they formed the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, the first women’s rights convention. As for Anthony, she was born to a Quaker father and attended and taught at a Quaker school. Anthony’s family began attending a Unitarian church in 1848, where Anthony also began attending in 1849. She remained there the rest of her life, though she still identified with her Quaker roots. Suffice it to say that neither Stanton nor Anthony was deriving her views from the Bible. Their movement was tied with many anti-biblical teachings, including the ordination of women to the pastorate and loose divorce laws. The National American Woman Suffrage Association, the group founded by Stanton and Anthony, was even led by the Methodist female minister Anna Howard Shaw from 1904 to 1915.

…Stanton was not simply concerned with a woman’s right to vote—she wanted to overthrow the traditional practices of male leadership in every sphere, including the church.   R.L. Dabney (1820–1898), a contemporary of Stanton, understood the goals of the women’s movement. He identified the two claims of first-wave feminism as: (1) The legal disregard of the natural differences between men and women; and (2) The release of women from marital subordination. The latter can be seen in Stanton’s unbiblical view of divorce, as she believed that marriage ought to be held together only for the sake of “love” (a common belief in our own day). This was a rejection of the traditional Christian teaching that divorce is only permissible in the case of adultery or abandonment (Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15). Thus, Stanton was a forerunner to the no-fault divorce laws of the late 20th century.

…[R.L.] Dabney considered Stanton to be the most consistent among the early feminists—'Women’s Rights’ mean the abolition of all permanent marriage ties. We are told that Mrs. Cady Stanton avowed this result, proclaiming it at the invitation of the Young Men’s Christian Association of New York. She holds that woman’s bondage is not truly dissolved until the marriage bond is annulled. She is thoroughly consistent. Some hoodwinked advocates of her revolution may be blind to the sequence; but it is inevitable.’

The point in all of this is that the women’s movement, along with its advocacy for women’s suffrage, was tied up with a rejection of historic and biblical Christianity. Stanton even went so far as to publish The Woman’s Bible, a commentary on the Bible that dismissed whatever passages she and her committee considered unfavorable towards women. Stanton herself wrote two-thirds of the work. She identified the teachings of the Bible on woman’s subordination as “evil,”   and she said in the preface to Part II of the book, “We have made a fetich of the Bible long enough. The time has come to read it as we do all other books, accepting the good and rejecting the evil it teaches.”   It must be recognized that The Woman’s Bible was controversial even among feminists in Stanton’s day, with some supporting it and others seeking to distance themselves from it. However, these quotations show that at the root of Stanton’s thinking was a rejection of biblical Christianity.

…Christian fathers have allowed their daughters to go the way of the world rather than point them to the Scriptures and train them to seek children and domesticity. This includes Christian pastors. But pastors bear additional guilt, as they have failed to address this sin in their congregations. Many Christian pastors are faithful to proclaim that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead, yet they say nothing of the Lord’s demands for gender roles and sexuality. They have not preached against unlawful divorce, promiscuous dating culture, egalitarian marriage practices, effeminate male behavior, the idolatrous pursuit of career and materialism over children, and homosexuality. They have failed to preach “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and so protect the flock from ravenous wolves.

…In 2005, author Mary Kassian said, “Feminism is a watershed issue. It is to the evangelical church of the new millennium what liberalism was to the church in decades past.”   I agree with Kassian, but we have the additional concern that the church has been far too late—and weak—in addressing the problem. Dabney predicted in 1871 that feminism ‘will destroy Christianity and civilization in America.’   Its threat is that serious. It is never too late for repentance, but it must come soon. Repentance starts by looking to the Word of God. And that is where we will now go.   [Garris, Masculine Christianity, selections from pages 4-12, 28 of the Kindle Edition]

It is evident that the feminist political push has spread into the church and created an ecclesiastical feminism, where so-called “ecclesiastical equality” for women is now often demanded as a matter of justice and righteousness. Many claim women must be allowed to hold church office and exercise authority over men and to teach men (or at minimum they declare that women are not “under” the authority of their husbands and do not need to obey or submit to their husband’s headship or be helpmeets and homemakers, cf. Eph. 5:22-24; Titus 2:3-5, creating a destructive Egalitarianism in the domestic sphere). Some do not go quite this far yet still demand that women must have the opportunity to function like female officers, albeit without the pastoral title and laying on of hands that comes with ordination. All of this is unbiblical and against the order of God’s creation and distinct purpose and good design for male and female (1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Cor. 11:7-12, 14:34-35, Eph. 5; Titus 2:3-5 etc.).   

The Egalitarian impulse or presupposition is also seen through immigration policies, with mass immigration of foreigners from vastly different cultures and religions that are often not a good fit to assimilate. “Equal opportunity for all” for the radical Egalitarian means that all nations and races with their particular cultures and religions have an inherent right not to be regarded as foreigners, but received as citizens or at least given equal opportunities in any nation that they desire. Some even claim that race, nations, and borders are imaginary, arbitrary, or completely fabricated distinctions. But importing large numbers of foreigners in a short period of time and giving them supposed inherent rights of radical “civil equality” by automatically granting citizenship and the opportunity to vote, hold office, and take up many jobs is a recipe for national and civil disaster and disorder. The effect of such is that it displaces the native population, helps foster factionalism, and undermines God’s work of gathering men into distinct tribes, nations, cultures, races, and language groups by trying to bring all of these together under one civil jurisdiction with no regard for national boundaries or distinctions of rights and privileges between the native and the foreigner. As Geerhardus Vos said in his well known Biblical Theology: “Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

Some churches have carried this Egalitarian spirit of our age into the church here also, bringing into their congregations an ecclesiastical Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I.) policy. It is most certainly true that there are no second-class citizens in the kingdom of God and body of Christ, and no Christian (regardless of race or nationality) should be forbidden local church membership. Nevertheless, these diversity quota policies basically charge local churches or entire denominations with sinful racial prejudice or malice if there is not a balanced number of persons from various tribes, tongues, nations, and races within each local church body and within church leadership. Or at minimum, it is claimed that a local church that is predominately of one race, culture, or even nationality and language is defective or suspect. But the Great Commission that Christ gave to His Apostles (and derivatively to His Church until His return) was to go and make disciples of the nations, not to bring in every tribe, tongue, nation, and race of the world into one country and one government such as the United States of America, much less into one particular church within the United States of America. The United States of America is not Old Testament Israel or Jerusalem with the earthly Temple, as if it is required or desirable that every Christian under heaven must migrate to her in order to worship in one place in order to truly be spiritually blessed. Rather, God is with His people wherever they are and in whatever tribe, tongue, or nation that is their own, when they worship Him in Spirit and Truth (John 4:21-24). The Gospel will only leaven the nations and go to the nations if many Christians are committed to serving God in their native land and shining the Gospel light among their own nation and people.

The effect of Egalitarianism, then, has been to erode male headship in the home, civil government, the military, and even in the Church. With mass immigration and mandated racial, ethnic, or gendered diversity quotas in the workforce and academia, it has also eroded national and societal cohesion and continuity. It has flattened out and removed the proper domains that are specific to male and female, and it seeks to remove altogether the distinction between the native and the stranger or foreigner. But Scripture says that when the foreigner climbs higher and higher in a nation, and the native falls lower and lower and becomes like the tail rather than the head, this is a sign of God’s judgment on that nation and people, Deut. 28:43-44. For example, Puritan Bible Commentator John Trapp applied this passage to the “Lurdaines” or Danish people (Vikings), when they rose to prominence over England and the English people for a time: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/jtc/deuteronomy-28.html?print=yes   

Calvin commented on Deut. 32:7-8 regarding God’s choice to distribute nations to particular races or peoples as an inheritance is divided:

All peoples were alike under the hand and power of God, and thus that their diversity was not in their original nature, but derived from elsewhere, i.e., from God's free choice… God distributed the nations, as an inheritance is divided; and then this is more clearly repeated, when he mentions the separation of the sons of Adam.

Since a nation is an inheritance given to the particular people that belong to that nation, then it is theirs, the native’s land and country, by right and inheritance from God. As such, that race or people of a nation have a right to safeguard and preserve their people and nation from foreign invasion and displacement, including displacement that occurs through rapid, mass immigration. We underscore this with another quotation, this time from Puritan and Presbyterian Bible Commentator Matthew Henry:

The wisdom of God has appointed the bounds of men’s habitation, and determined both the place and time of our living in the world, Acts 17:26. When he gave the earth to the children of men (Ps. 115:16), it was not that every man might catch as he could; no, he divides to nations their inheritance, and will have every one to know his own, and not to invade another’s property.

What must be understood is that God’s grace does not dissolve the natural gatherings and distinctions God has ordained to restrain ungodliness in society and nations. Rather, God’s grace in Christ sanctifies sinners through God’s Word and Christ’s Spirit. The result is that each realm in which Christians exist and live (Home, Church, and State/Civil Society) are leavened with the gospel and righteousness. Yet, in God’s providence this does not happen in such a way that there is a perfect, egalitarian flattening or “equality” of giftedness or blessedness in every respect between the sexes, races, nations, or cultures of this world. This unequal gifting and ability, whether of natural capacities, Spiritual gifts and graces (Eph. 4:7), or that which is acquired through nurture, learning, and education, is despised and rejected by Egalitarianism.

The fundamental error of Egalitarianism is that it claims that virtually any inequality is automatically an injustice that must be rectified. This has reared its ugly head in certain quarters in the Church by misapplying Galatians 3:26-29, confusing Spiritual unity between Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free with a natural or national unity, as if male and female no longer exist as distinct sexes with distinct purposes, as if ethnic or racial distinctions and national boundaries are no longer real, and as if economic structures, various classes in society, or positions of authority and subordination are inherently bad and must be “torn down”, especially wherever unequal giftedness or opportunity is found among these. Faithful churches and Elders must warn the congregation of these popular and pernicious errors. Galatians 3:26-29 teaches us Spiritual unity and Spiritual equality in Christ’s Church and His kingdom of grace, and that His Church is universal in terms of grafting all true Christians into one people united by Spiritual bonds of “one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6). But it does not teach a societal or civic Egalitarianism or “oneness” that dissolves or ignores differences between the sexes, races, classes, or nations.   As far back as 2019, even Ligonier Ministries’ Tabletalk Magazine highlighted this problem:

"... some people appeal to Galatians 3:28 to defend egalitarianism, transgenderism, comprehensive cultural assimilation, ethnic indifference, classless societies, and more. But those ideas are irrelevant to Paul’s point. The parity he’s advocating is with respect to salvation; it’s not a wholesale blurring of all human distinctions. In fact, certain distinctions were established at creation—such as between the Sabbath and ordinary days (Gen. 2:2–3; Ex. 16:22–26; Mark 7:19), between labor and rest (Gen. 2:15; 2 Thess. 3:10; James 5:4), and in gender roles (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:3–16). This reality informs the general abiding validity of the three categories Paul mentions: gender roles (male-female), socio-labor distinctions (slave-free), and ethnicity (Jew-Greek)." (Tabletalk Magazine, "Galatians 3:28", August 2019: https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2019/08/galatians-328/)

The parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14ff.), among other passages of Scripture, affirms unequal giftedness and blessedness, and further, that this is not an inequality that needs to be “fixed” or leveled out. God gives abilities and rewards proportionately as He sees fit, calling us to good stewardship and thankfulness rather than envy, laziness, or bitterness. The grumblings of the one talent man led to him losing his one talent and God giving it to the one who was first given five and who had made five more talents with it. From this we learn that to whom much is given, much is required, but also that to him who has little and does little, even what little he has will be taken away from him and given to the one who has most of all: “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away” (Matt. 25:29).

Indeed, a righteous man lays up an inheritance not only for his children, but his children’s children, and does not steal from his grandchildren by giving all his goods away to the poor (Prov. 13:22). Yet we know that in many churches today, it would be seen as ungodly to store up for your grandchildren at the expense of helping a poor stranger. Our loves and duties are wrongly ordered and prioritized, being shaped more by Egalitarianism than biblical Christianity. So it must be understood that the Lord does not call us to remove all distinctions, gatherings, particular duties, or inequalities, but to recognize them as part of His good purpose and to multiply whatever talents we have to the best of our abilities, by His help and strength. This must be recognized not only at an individual level, but at the familial, societal, and national level as well. Even rewards in heaven for each Christian are unequal, since God graciously bestows the measure of rewards in proportion to the Christian’s faithful obedience on earth, as seen in the parable of the minas in Luke 19:11-27 (note, these rewards are still unmerited, see https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2023/02/heavenly-rewards/).

Matthew Henry and John Calvin also have helpful comments on this parable of the talents. Henry: “When Divine Providence has made a difference in men’s ability, as to mind, body, estate, relation, and interest, divine grace dispenses spiritual gifts accordingly, but still the ability itself is from him.” Calvin: “Let us know that the Lord does not bestow on all indiscriminately the same measure of gifts, (Ephesians 4:7,) but distributes them variously as he thinks proper, (1 Corinthians 12:11,) so that some excel others.” The Egalitarian impulse may despise these inequalities, but this impulse goes against what God Himself has ordained regarding natural giftedness among men in the nations of the world as well as supernatural gifts and blessings in the kingdom of God. Matthew Poole makes it clear that the parable of the talents refers not only to Spiritual gifts, but all abilities and aptitudes, for they all come from the Lord:

It signifieth only God’s unequal distribution of his gifts to the sons of men, according to his own good pleasure; which is true both concerning natural parts, as wit, understanding, judgment, memory, as concerning those which the heathens call good things of fortune, as riches, honours, and dignities… I take all those powers given to men, by which they are enabled to do good, or to excel others, to come under the notion of the goods here mentioned, which God distributeth unequally according to his own good pleasure, and as seemeth best to his heavenly wisdom.

Let us be very clear -- none of this gives us ground to grumble that we have been given little, nor to boast that we have been given much, for all comes from the Lord, and these inequalities are actually for the good purpose of serving one another. When we are gifted in some area, we should use those gifts to serve one another, and when we lack in some area, we should be willing and thankful to God that He has gifted others who can help us in that area. Inequality is actually necessary for both civic labors and Christian charity to be possible, and for the different parts of Christ’s body to each perform their purpose and function for the good of the whole body. Further, the Lord is often pleased to use the “foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:27-31).

Before we get to the affirmations and denials proper, it is necessary to bring to the forefront the ever-present distinction between natural affections and duties on the one hand, and Spiritual (or divine) affections and duties on the other. Matthew Henry said in his commentary on Genesis 24, “The highest degrees of divine affection must not divest us of natural affection.”   Confusing or conflating divine and natural affection, or using one to cancel out the other is contrary to Scripture and sinful (Mark 7:9-13), yet this is also common today and within Egalitarian thinking. We also note that our natural affection and duties must never lead us away from God and toward sin. Henry also comments on Genesis 12:

Natural affection must give way to divine grace. Our country is dear to us, our kindred dearer, and our father’s house dearest of all; and yet they must all be hated (Lu. 14:26), that is, we must love them less than Christ, hate them in comparison with him, and, whenever any of these come in competition with him, they must be postponed, and the preference given to the will and honour of the Lord Jesus.

Henry is not contradicting himself. Divine affection does not remove or dilute natural affection. At the same time, our country, kindred, and family, which should especially be cherished by the Christian, must not be cherished above or equal to Christ and His kingdom. But just as a man is to love His wife deeply, and even give his life for her, so should natural affection lead us to love and sacrifice deeply for our own country, kindred, and family. This is faithfulness, not idolatry, so long as our love and sacrifices for our own natural bonds do not lead us away from Christ or cause us to go against our Spiritual affections and bonds.

Calvin said the following regarding natural affection for our kin, family, and household in his commentary on 1 Tim. 5:8: “This is a kind of duty which nature itself teaches; for they are (storgai phusikai) natural affections. And if, by the mere guidance of nature, infidels are so prone to love their own, what must we think of those who are not moved by any such feeling? Do they not go even beyond the ungodly in brutality?”

The sin of lacking natural affection (ἄστοργος, unloving or without natural affection toward family and kin) is strongly condemned in Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3. See https://www.biblexika.com/bible-lexicon/astorgos-g794 where they write, “It signifies a profound lack of the innate, familial love and loyalty that is expected to bind families and communities together… This word is theologically significant as it diagnoses a root symptom of human sin: the corruption of the created order for relationships. God designed humans for love and community, beginning with the family. To be ἄστοργος is to violate this fundamental design, reflecting a heart turned away from God… it is not just a lack of feeling but an active rebellion against the natural relational fabric God instituted.”

With that made clear, consider that the family is a natural institution. It does not come into existence through the Gospel or only for Christians within the Church or Kingdom of God. The family is the first institution ordained by God in the Garden of Eden, for all of mankind. The nation and civil society and its government are also natural and common to all mankind and all nations and peoples, for they are not created or constituted through the Gospel, nor are they part of the Church, though they are under the Lordship of Christ and must be governed by God’s law (Romans 13). It is debated whether civil government would have existed in any sense apart from man’s fall into sin. Certainly, it is clear that insofar as the civil government is to restrain evil and punish the evildoer, this aspect of civil government was necessitated by the fall. But the point to be made is that each person is born not only into a family that is their own, but ordinarily into their own country and its government, with natural bonds that engender natural affection for these as well.

Jesus came first to “His own” (likely meaning those of Israel, John 1:11) and wept over Jerusalem rejecting Him (Lk. 19:41, Mt. 23:37). Paul likewise had special concern and affection for his Israelite kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom. 9:3), even as he was called to minister to the Gentiles who were not “his flesh” (Rom. 11:13-14). Here, too, the Egalitarian error urges us to flatten out our loves, creating disordered loves, rather than what is called ordo amoris, or properly ordered loves. We can speak of our race, nation, or people as “our flesh” like Paul, without denying our common humanity with all races, nations, and peoples. A man can say of His wife that she is “bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23) without denying that the most remote foreigner also equally shares human nature with us, and also without denying that in Christ we are now “of His flesh and of His bones (Eph. 5:30)! But to affirm we are all made in the image of God and fallen in Adam is not to deny that we are nearer in blood and kinship with some more than others. The Egalitarian may hate this, but God has ordained this, and has given us particular and special duties, loves, and loyalties (in keeping with God’s law) to those who are “our own”. William Ames, a chief Puritan who advised at the Synod of Dordt in 1619, which produced our church and denomination’s Confessional document The Canons of Dordt, said this (and much more) regarding properly ordered loves:

The order of this charity [love] is this: that God is first and chiefly to be loved by charity, and so he is, as it were, the formal reason for this charity toward our neighbour. Next after God we are bound to love ourselves, namely with that charity which respects true blessedness; for loving God himself with a love of union, we love ourselves immediately with that chief charity which respects our spiritual blessedness. But secondarily, we should love others whom we would have partake of the same good with us. Moreover, others may be deprived of this blessedness without our fault, but we ourselves cannot; and therefore we are more bound to will and to seek this blessedness for ourselves than for others…..

If among those who are to be beloved, there is no apparent disparity either in respect to God, or in respect to us, then they are to be beloved equally.

21. But if any apparent disparity appears, either in their nearness to God or to ourselves, then the one who exceeds in any nearness, is more to be beloved — that is, when we cannot exercise the act of our love alike toward all, we are more bound to place our love on those whom God has commended to us by some special nearness or communion, than on others. Therefore, even though we should equally will the salvation of others, yet the exercise and care of this will is chiefly due those who are joined near to us in some special respect. For example, though a Soldier ought to wish well to all his fellow Soldiers, yet he is bound to take most care of those who are of the same band, and closest to him in Rank. This appears in that example of Paul, who more fervently desired the conversion of the Israelites than of other Nations. He gives one reason for this affection: because they were his brethren, and kindred according to the flesh, Rom 9.3.

22. Yet in this prerogative of charity, we must wish for those who are near to us, those good things which pertain to that conjunction by which they are near — such as wishing spiritual good things to those who are most spiritually joined to us, and natural good things to those with whom we have a natural nearness. It is not that those kinds of good things are to be separated from one another in our desires, but because of the very kind of conjunction, it is as it were, a beckon from God by which he stirs us up to bestow our pains chiefly in this or that kind.

23. Hence it follows: First, that kindred in blood, Caeteris paribus, all other things being equal, are more to be beloved than strangers, in those things which pertain to the good things of this life; and among those who are near in blood, those who are nearest are most to be loved. [William Ames: The Marrow of Theology, Ch. 16: Of Justice and Charity Toward our Neighbor].

Today, rightly ordering your loves such that you love those near to you more intensely and dearly than others will be regarded as hate or prejudice in society, and sadly sometimes even in Christian churches. But it is proper to love your people and nation first and foremost, provided you do not despise or mistreat others in the process and that you do not excuse or tolerate sin in your own people and nation. True love does not tolerate sin or wickedness. To give an easy example, in your own local church, you ought to love your own wife and children more than the wife and children that is not your own flesh within the local church body. We ought to labor for their physical and spiritual wellbeing as their husband and father more so than other brothers and sisters in Christ and their families, since we are not of their flesh and blood family. This isn’t sinful partiality or schism, and it obviously isn’t denying that we all descend from Adam, are fellow human beings made in God’s image, and share Spiritual unity and fellowship in Christ, but it is recognizing that there is natural affection of nearer bonds and greater duties that God has given to us and that remain with us as Christians. Divine or Spiritual affection for Christ and all in His Church does not erase love for the family within the local church, and we still have duties to our household and family before burdening the church (1 Tim. 5:1-16, etc.).

This document is provided in part to help us rightly order and prioritize our loves and duties again, for failure to do so is sinful neglect and destructive to our families and communities. Egalitarianism says that “loving your own” the most is sin and partiality, but Scripture says that loving your own first and foremost is Christianity, for Christ came for His own elect bride, the Church, and bought her with His precious blood. Even in His human nature, coming to the Jews, they were especially “His own” people or race for which He shed tears and longed to gather them in (Matt. 23:37), and He was sent to them first before the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6; Matt. 15:24). None of this contradicts Spiritual unity and affection and equality for all that are in Christ, if you rightly distinguish between natural affection and divine or Spiritual affection. Paul had a greater natural affection for his fellow Jews and kinsmen according to the flesh, his race or people, particularly that they would be saved. But this did not make him some sort of bigoted “racist”, for in Christ and touching upon Spiritual unity in the Church, he displayed deep love, fellowship, and unity with Gentile Christians, including as a foreign missionary sent out to them to preach and proclaim the Gospel. Paul was not like Jonah, who despised the Ninevites and even became angry with God when they repented and found mercy from the Lord. From this we see that it is righteous to have natural affection and a stronger and deeper desire to see your own family, kin, people and nation saved, provided you genuinely rejoice and strongly desire the salvation of all the elect from every tribe, tongue, and nation.  As a bit of an aside, we also see that Arminianism has a similar sense of “justice” as the Egalitarian, thinking that Christ must have died for all and must love all equally, or else God would be unjust and sinfully partial. We trust the absurdity of this is obvious.      

In conclusion, the Eldership of Heritage Reformed Presbyterian Church upholds the biblical reality of distinct tribes, nations, cultures, races, and language groups as part of God’s good and wise design to restrain ungodliness, promote good order and righteousness in the civil realm, and display His glory. The gospel sanctifies every family, race, nation, and their cultures without erasing them or removing the Christian’s natural affection for these and duties toward them. Spiritual unity and God’s grace in Christ does not abolish natural order and distinctions but instead restores and perfects them. We therefore reject Egalitarianism and ideologies related to them, such as secular humanism, globalism, feminism, and cultural Marxism. These all seek a false, Babel-like uniformity, flattening, and converging together under the false banner of one race, one nation, one culture, one language, one class or rank (Marxism or Communism), one sex or gender (or the confusion and perversion of transgenderism and “many” genders), and so on. These are contrary to God’s revealed will and promote the works of the sinful flesh and pride of man. They despise that God has ordained inequalities, envying that some have been more blessed than others, that those who are given more are responsible to do more good with what they have been given, that God has ordained men to rule and to lead and for women to be led and to serve as a helpmeet and homemaker for their husbands, etc.

But we heartily affirm the Spiritual unity and Spiritual equality all believers have in the Church and Body of Christ, spanning across the lines of race, nation, culture, language, and gender. This unity is in having “one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:5-6).

May the Lord build His Church as the Gospel leavens the tribes, tongues, nations, and races of the earth, each in their own land and place the Lord has given them, according to the bounds He has set, so that they may best find the Lord for salvation. (Acts 17:26-27). 

And may God’s kingdom come and will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

 

AFFIRMATIONS AND DENIALS

1. Regarding Race: Is it a biblical category or term? How is race defined?

We affirm that “race” or “races” is an appropriate and acceptable term to describe the biblical categories denoting distinct lineages of nearer kinship and shared ancestry, languages, customs, and culture (Gen. 9-11 and the lineages or posterity of Shem, Ham, and Japheth; Rev. 7:9 with “nations”, “kindreds”, “peoples”, and “tongues”), and that “race” may also be used to describe the broader category of all of mankind as the one human race descended from Adam, made in God’s image (Acts 17:26; Gen. 1:26–27). We further affirm that national, racial, lingual, and other distinct gatherings and groupings are recognized throughout Scripture and even in some sense in the state of glory (Rev. 5:9, 7:9, 21:24-26, etc.). We further affirm that all lineages or races of mankind descend from and are fallen in Adam, and therefore, all races of mankind are equally made in the image of God and need atonement and redemption through Jesus Christ.

Nor was it without reason; for since this was the race chosen by God…This also is the reason why he expressly styles him the ‘father of the sons of Eber,’ and the elder brother of Japheth. … Yet the benediction was not extinguished, but only buried for a season, until Abraham was called, in honor of whom this singular dignity is ascribed to the race and name of Eber.  [From John Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 10]

…Moses begins with Japheth’s family, either because he was the eldest, or because his family lay remotest from Israel and had least concern with them at the time when Moses wrote, and therefore he mentions that race very briefly, hastening to give an account of the posterity of Ham, who were Israel’s enemies and of Shem, who were Israel’s ancestors… [From Puritan and Presbyterian Matthew Henry’s Commentary on Genesis 10]

…his blood atoned for ev’ry race, his blood atoned for ev’ry race, and sprinkles now the throne of grace… [From the Trinity Psalter-Hymnal hymn #275, “Arise, My Soul, Arise”, jointly produced in 2018 by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) and United Reformed Churches (URC) denominations]

We deny that distinct races are merely a social construct, a result of evolutionary theories (theistic or otherwise), or reducible to skin color, and we reject any definition that imports atheistic assumptions. We further deny that some races are unable to be redeemed by the blood of Christ, that some races are only “partly” or “lesser” human, or that human beings are merely bodies or reducible to their genetics (for God created man with both body and soul, Gen. 2:7, and sin affects the whole man, both “soul and body”, WCF 6.2).

We affirm that observable physical features (Jer. 13:23), inherited or ingrained traits, and familial lineages can help accurately identify and reveal these distinct races that have developed as part of God’s free choice and purpose (Gen. 10, and see Calvin quote above), even known via natural revelation to believers and unbelievers alike.

We deny that natural similarity between the races removes meaningful racial distinctions any more than natural similarity erases meaningful distinctions between the sexes (male and female, Gen. 1:26-27, 1 Pet. 3:7, 1 Cor. 11:1-16, etc.).

 

2. The Definition and Nature of Nations, Natives and Foreigners, and Natural Affection,

We affirm that God intended for mankind both before the Fall into sin and after the flood in Noah’s day to spread out over the earth by forming into distinct families, tribes, nations, and races or peoples (seen in the three lines of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Gen. 9:18-19) in order to effectively “fill the earth and subdue it” (cf. Gen. 1:28, 9:1-7, 18-19). We further affirm that God sovereignly divided humanity after the Flood into distinct tribes, tongues, nations, and races along familial lines with a common language (Gen. 10:5, 20, 31) in order to restrain ungodliness, promote union and love, ensure man would spread over the earth and subdue it as He commanded, distinguish one nation and people from another, and serve His good design (see Puritan Bible Commentator Matthew Poole's quote below). Since ungodliness must still be restrained, union and love must still be promoted, and man must continue to effectively fill the earth and rule and subdue it for God's glory in an orderly way, the continuance of distinct tribes, tongues, nations, and races along familial lines and sharing a common language remains generally beneficial for mankind and societal or civic cohesion.

Matthew Poole [On Genesis 11]: …weak and silly men, durst oppose themselves to the infinitely wise and powerful God, who did (as they might easily gather both from His words and works) intend to disperse and separate them, that so by degrees they might possess the whole earth, which God had made for that purpose.

…Here observe the wise and gracious providence of God mixed with this judgment, that God distributed the languages according to the difference of families and nations, that each several nation, and all the families or branches of that nation, should have one and the same language; whereby both union and love were preserved among themselves, and the several nations were distinguished one from another. [Poole on Genesis 10:5]

We deny that the Gospel, Pentecost, or the Great Commission supplants or tears down these natural, national, and civic distinctions or promotes globalism, multi-culturalism, or mass mixing that results in the dissolution of tribes, tongues, nations, and races. We further deny that God’s gathering mankind into distinct families, tribes, kindreds, and nations is a curse or judgment upon mankind for the sinful pride displayed at the Tower of Babel.

We affirm that God allotted various portions of the earth for various tribes and extended families who settled into their allotted lands and formed nations (Gen. 9-11, Deut. 32:8, Acts 17:26-27). These nations are like extended households as they were settled by various tribes or families bound together by nearer blood kinship and shared language, over time developing a common culture, history, and customs (Gen. 9-11). We affirm, therefore, that each person has a native land and nation which is his own, and other lands and nations in which he is a foreigner or stranger and that are not his own, though civil magistrates may choose to receive foreigners into their own land and nation or even “adopt” them as citizens when it is prudent and beneficial for their nation.

Note that the Greek word ethnos/ ἔθνος, which is often translated as “nation” or “nations” in the Bible, is defined variously as “a body of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions…” [from BDAG Lexicon] or as a “a race (as of the same habit), i.e. A tribe; specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication, pagan) -- Gentile, heathen, nation, people” [from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance].  

• Matthew Poole on division of the world (Gen. 10): “In general, the world was divided into three parts, whereof the more eastern parts were allotted to Shem and his issue, the more southern parts to Ham, and the more northern parts of it to Japheth.” Poole (on Gen. 9:27 and Gen. 10) also notes that Japheth’s enlargement included “all Europe, a great part of Asia, and it is probable America also.”

We deny that citizenship, voting in elections, or rule in government is a “right” belonging to foreigners, even when they share creedal or doctrinal agreement (whether with the civil laws or constitution of a given nation or the creeds and confessions of a given church denomination). Consider Deut. 32:8, Gen. 10-11, Acts 17:26-27, the fact that the 12 tribes of Israel did not have all the land in common, but it was divided up in portions to each tribe, etc.

We affirm that a nation may choose to receive foreigners as guests (and such foreigners should behave as respectful guests rather than as supplanters or usurpers), and foreigners should be shown hospitality, love, and kindness when granted admittance into a foreign country (Ex. 22:21), and we further affirm that in this fallen world such things as wars, natural disasters, migrations, conquests, fleeing persecution as a refugee, colonization, and the emergence of empires create circumstances where those of a different race or nationality living in or even being granted citizenship in a country that is not their homeland or among their native people (like the Apostle Paul, cf. Acts 21-22) can and does occur without entailing anything sinful or improper.

• Matthew Poole on migrations (Gen. 10): “The same people which were originally seated in one place did ofttimes shift their places, or at least sent forth colonies; and that sometimes into places far distant from their brethren… So you must not wonder if you meet with the same people in divers countries.”

We deny that unjust demographic replacement (including through mass immigration) of a nation’s stock or race and godly culture is biblically desirable or even neutral, but in fact these are generally a sign of God’s judgment. (Deut. 28:43ff.; Isa. 1:7, etc.)

We affirm the propriety of natural affection (deeper bonds of love and care) for our kinsmen according to the flesh, even as the Apostle Paul had a greater desire for those of his own family, race, and nation to be saved (Rom. 9:3, 10:1, 11:14, etc.); we further affirm that Paul’s various references or appeal to being Hebrew, Jewish, or Israelite by bloodline, culture, education, or language (Acts 21-22; Romans 11:1; Phil. 3, etc.) did not detract from his Gospel ministry to and love for the Gentiles. We affirm, therefore, that it is proper and indeed required that families within the local church would care for their own before burdening the church (1 Tim. 5:3-16, etc.). Therefore, properly ordered loves, priorities, and duties are not erased or removed for the Christian, nor can natural affection or exercising such properly ordered loves be charged with the sin of partiality (James 2:1-5).   

This appears in that example of Paul, who more fervently desired the conversion of the Israelites than of other Nations. He gives one reason for this affection: because they were his brethren, and kindred according to the flesh, Rom 9.3.

…22. Yet in this prerogative of charity, we must wish for those who are near to us, those good things which pertain to that conjunction by which they are near — such as wishing spiritual good things to those who are most spiritually joined to us, and natural good things to those with whom we have a natural nearness. It is not that those kinds of good things are to be separated from one another in our desires, but because of the very kind of conjunction, it is as it were, a beckon from God by which he stirs us up to bestow our pains chiefly in this or that kind.

23. Hence it follows: First, that kindred in blood, Caeteris paribus, all other things being equal, are more to be beloved than strangers, in those things which pertain to the good things of this life; and among those who are near in blood, those who are nearest are most to be loved. [excerpted from the quotation above from William Ames’ The Marrow of Theology, Ch. 16: Of Justice and Charity Toward our Neighbor].

We deny that natural affection for our family, kin, or race is in opposition to Spiritual affection for God’s people and our brothers and sisters in Christ, but rather it is a duty which nature itself teaches, as John Calvin states in his comments upon 1 Timothy 5:8 (which was quoted above). Further, the sin of being astorge (without natural affection) is strongly condemned in Romans 1:31 and 2 Timothy 3:3. Yet, we further deny that love for family, kin, nation, or people can lead us away from the Lord and His law, so long as we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:33) and when unbelieving family or the apostasy of our country seeks to prevent us from the right worship, service, and loyalty to the Lord, we must obey and follow the Lord, remaining loyal to Him while grieved and burdened over the wickedness of our country and people (Matt. 10:34-39; Lk. 14:26).

The highest degrees of divine affection must not divest us of natural affection. [Matthew Henry on Gen. 12]

Natural affection must give way to divine grace. Our country is dear to us, our kindred dearer, and our father’s house dearest of all; and yet they must all be hated (Lu. 14:26), that is, we must love them less than Christ, hate them in comparison with him, and, whenever any of these come in competition with him, they must be postponed, and the preference given to the will and honour of the Lord Jesus. [Matthew Henry on Gen. 24]

3. Christ Alone the Foundation of Spiritual Unity in the Church (Both Universal & Local)

We affirm that Christ alone is the ground and foundation of Spiritual unity, church communion, and Christian hope, and we further affirm the Spiritual unity and Spiritual equality of all believers in Christ regardless of race, language, or nationality (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14–16), and that this unity is present not only among believers in the same local or particular church but is also shared among all believers in the church universal. This is because Spiritual unity and Spiritual equality in Christ is realized by grace alone through faith alone, to the glory of God alone, for all in Christ of every tribe, tongue, nation, or race worship the same Lord and have received the same baptism and Spirit, being grafted into one body with “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6). We affirm, therefore, that Spiritual unity is in Christ alone and is not grounded in having the same family, nation, culture, language, or race.

We deny that Spiritual unity mandates racial diversity quotas in the local church, but we also deny that an individual or family of another race can be treated disparagingly or refused Spiritual care, instruction, or church membership simply because they are a foreigner or of another race or nationality.

We affirm that the gospel and God’s word should be proclaimed and given to all races and nations of mankind  (Matt. 15:21-28; 28:18-20), and that all local churches should show love and care within their congregations across racial and cultural lines to their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, taking special care not to neglect any and to ensure that all are being effectively ministered to and having their needs of both body and soul met (see Acts 6 and the neglected widows). We further affirm that all believers in good standing, regardless of race, ethnicity, ancestry, or national origin, are to be received as brothers and sisters in Christ without partiality, suspicion, or ecclesiastical rank (i.e., ecclesiastical favoritism). We further affirm that Christian love, care, prayer, financial support, mutual fellowship, Spiritual gifts and graces, etc., are to be shared within each church, between sister churches, and when prudent and feasible to all true churches, thereby showing that they are “one in Christ”, Gal. 3:26-29; see also Acts 11:29-30; 24:17; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-27; Eph. 4, Romans 12, 1 Cor. 12, especially verse 13, 1 Cor. 1:26-31, WCF 25-26, H.C. 55, etc.).    

There is one body. He proceeds to show more fully in how complete a manner Christians ought to be united. The union ought to be such that we shall form one body and one soul. These words denote the whole man. We ought to be united, not in part only, but in body and soul. He supports this by a powerful argument, as ye have been called in one hope of your calling. We are called to one inheritance and one life; and hence it follows, that we cannot obtain eternal life without living in mutual harmony in this world. One Divine invitation being addressed to all, they ought to be united in the same profession of faith, and to render every kind of assistance to each other. Oh, were this thought deeply impressed upon our minds, that we are subject to a law which no more permits the children of God to differ among themselves than the kingdom of heaven to be divided, how earnestly should we cultivate brotherly kindness! [From Calvin’s Commentary on Ephesians 4:4]

...our Lord teaches a very useful doctrine; for he admits all his disciples and all believers to the same honorable rank, as if they were his nearest relatives, or rather he places them in the room of his mother and brethren. Now this statement is closely connected with the office of Christ; for he tells us that he has been given, not to a small number of individuals, but to all the godly, who are united in one body with him by faith. [From Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew 12:48]

All obedient believers are near akin to Jesus Christ. They wear his name, bear his image, have his nature, are of his family. He loves them, converses freely with them as his relations. [From Matthew Henry’s commentary on Matthew 12:48].

We deny that racially or culturally homogeneous churches are inherently sinful in every circumstance (e.g., a church with a sizable minority race and culture in its membership decides to plant a new sister church with the families of that minority race and culture to effectively evangelize and minister within that racial and cultural community, provided that no Christian of any race or nationality is prohibited from joining either sister church).

4. Racial, National, and Cultural Inequalities, and Self-Preservation as Self-Defense

We affirm that the Westminster Larger Catechism rightly speaks of superiors, inferiors, and equals based on age, gifts, and station, which indicates that an individual, family, nation, or race under unjust and false denigration of their gifts, calling, and heritage ought not to deny, but rather humbly assert their gifts, calling, and heritage in order to honor the truth and not bear false witness by “thinking or speaking… too meanly [lowly] of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God" [WLC 145 on the 9th commandment], just as the Apostle Paul had to defend the class of the Apostles (1 Cor. 9) and his own Apostolic calling, gifting, and ministry from detractors (cf. Acts 26; Gal. 1-2; 2 Cor. 10-13; 1 Cor. 9; 1 Thess. 2).

We deny that we may whitewash or minimize the real sins and weaknesses of ourselves, our own family, nation, or race. This also is in keeping with WLC 145 which forbids “thinking or speaking too highly… of ourselves or others”. Further, we deny that any greater abilities, aptitudes, or achievements an individual, family, nation or race may possess warrants boasting and vain-glory, for all that may cause some to differ or excel over others comes from the kind hand and providence of God (1 Cor. 4:7).  Whatever gifts, station, learning, order, or cultural blessings a nation or people possess are gifts to be used in humility, righteousness, and servitude for the glory of God, our good, and the good of others. We further deny that racial, national, or cultural strengths or advantages in any manner or fashion factor into the doctrine of election, merits salvation, or earns our standing before God in the Church and His Kingdom of sheer, sovereign grace.

We affirm that the blessings and curses to Noah’s sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth at minimum extended for many generations to their families, and that these generations and families formed and established the nations of the world (Gen. 9:25-27, Gen. 10), thereby showing God’s providence in ordaining familial, cultural, and national inequalities (cf. Gen. 25:23; 27:29, etc.). Because inequality necessarily means that one excels over another in certain ways, this indicates the propriety of recognizing various strengths and weaknesses within nations or races at a general level. We further affirm that natural inequalities among nations and peoples would exist even apart from sin and man’s fall in Adam, and that society corresponds most closely to the family with authority, subordination, equality and inequality, unity of nature as well as diversity of gifts.

The history of the human race did not begin atomistically, with a group of isolated individuals, but organically, with a marriage and a family. . . . The disparity, which we presently observe everywhere in human society, is in principle and in essence not a result of sin, as many people thought in earlier and later times, but it existed from the beginning, even before sin entered the world. [Bavinck, the Christian Family, 109].

We deny that these various inequalities and strengths and weaknesses are immutable, for they developed over many generations after the flood and can rise or fall over many generations as a nation or people turn away from the Lord or turn back to Him (Ps. 33:12; Prov. 14:34), being either further hardened in their sin, or raised up out of their sin and blessed. We further deny that these inequalities are reducible to nature alone (just as we deny that they are reducible to nurture or education alone), as man is fallen in both soul and body (WCF 6.2), and God gives natural (Gen. 4:20-22, etc.) and Spiritual (Eph. 4:7ff., Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12, etc.) blessings as well as curses or judgments down through generations (Ex. 20:5-6) as He sees fit. We further deny that it is righteous to presumptively pass judgment upon individuals in such a way that he or she is regarded as morally or Spiritually “good” or “bad” based merely upon his family, city, nationality, skin color, or race rather than upon the actual fruit in the life of that individual. Finally, we deny that one can establish an immutable racial hierarchy or ranking of families, nations or races according to their giftedness and aptitudes. [Though recognizing the general strengths and weaknesses of each nation or race in the present day, which comprises several living generations and generally has continuity with the most recent generations that preceded, is necessary to affirm what is real and true.]

We affirm that God gives unequal distributions of natural, cultural, and Spiritual gifts, strengths, and weaknesses to individuals, families, nations, and races (Matt. 25:14–30; Gen. 4:20-22; Gen. 9:24–27; 1 Cor. 12; Titus 1:12-13, etc.) for His glory and the common good, and that individuals, families, nations, and races improve through righteousness and decline through sin, so that “Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people.” (Prov. 14:34; see also Ps. 33:12).

“Justice, reigning in a nation, puts an honour upon it. A righteous administration of the government, impartial equity between man and man, public countenance given to religion, the general practice and profession of virtue, the protecting and preserving of virtuous men, charity and compassion to strangers (alms are sometimes called righteousness), these exalt a nation; they uphold the throne, elevate the people’s minds, and qualify a nation for the favour of God, which will make them high, as a holy nation, Deu. 26:19. 2. Vice, reigning in a nation, puts disgrace upon it: Sin is a reproach to any city or kingdom, and renders them despicable among their neighbours. The people of Israel were often instances of both parts of this observation; they were great when they were good, but when they forsook God all about them insulted them and trampled on them. It is therefore the interest and duty of princes to use their power for the suppression of vice and support of virtue.” [Matthew Henry on Proverbs 14:34]

We deny the Egalitarian impulse that claims recognizing inferior or superior abilities or gifting is hatred or sinful partiality, we deny that all tribes, nations, or races are always equal in giftedness, and we deny that unequal opportunities or outcomes are always the result of injustice. (Prov. 13:22, Mt. 25:26-30, Job 12, the constant describing of the various strengths and weaknesses of various nations, tribes, and clans in the Bible, David’s various “mighty men” in 1 Chronicles, etc.).  

We affirm that when a nation’s race or people, language, customs, righteous laws and Christian religion face unjust denigration or replacement, natural affection that accords with God’s law and is devoid of sinful malice calls for righteous self-preservation in the form of self-defense in the civil realm, which ordinarily is to be led by faithful civil magistrates. Indeed, this is in keeping with the duties of the 5^th, 6^th, and 8^th commandments as explained in the Westminster Larger Catechism -- honoring our fathers and their labors, protecting the life of our people in our land, and preserving the land and prosperity of our nation that belongs to our people. We therefore affirm that it is righteous to desire that each nation and its race or people would continue to primarily populate the lands and nations the Lord has appointed to them and to which He has bound them, so that they may flourish in their nations and "so that they should seek the Lord" for salvation (see Acts 17:26-27 and Deut. 32:8)

Puritan and Presbyterian Pastor and Bible Commentator Matthew Henry: "When he [God] gave the earth to the children of men (Ps. 115:16), it was not that every man might catch as he could; no, he divides to nations their inheritance, and will have every one to know his own, and not to invade another's property."  

We deny that such civic self-defense and self-preservation of a nation or race is contrary to the Gospel or Christian love and fellowship that ought and must be shared across racial, cultural, and national lines, or that love for one’s own nation and people implies or tolerates sinful hatred of other nations and peoples, or that policies promoting mass immigration or promoting foreigners in the workforce over natives (out of a misplaced sense of Egalitarian “equity” or policies mandating diversity quotas in order to be “just” or overcome “discrimination”) are biblically just or wise.   

Scottish Presbyterian Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex Rex while serving as a commissioner at the Westminster Assembly which produced our Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. In his work he stated the following (Lex Rex, Question 31, 159–60) regarding self-preservation:

Self-preservation in all creatures in which is nature, is in the creature suitable to their nature. The bull defendeth itself by its horns, the eagle by her claws and bill … So men, and Christian men, do naturally defend themselves; but the manner of self-defence in a rational creature is rational, and not always merely natural; therefore, a politic community, being a combination of many natures, as neither grace, far less can policy, destroy nature, then must these many natures be allowed of God to use a natural self-defence. If a king bring in an army of foreigners, then a politic community must defend itself in a rational way.

5. Regarding Interracial and Cross-Cultural Marriages

We affirm that Scripture does not forbid interracial marriage as sinful, and such marriages can certainly be wise and greatly blessed by God, being righteous and fruitful like any other marriage.  We also affirm that Christians may righteously prefer marriage within their own race, culture, and nation without sinfully despising other races, cultures, or nations.

We deny that political, cultural, media, or even ecclesiastical pressure to glamorize interracial or cross-cultural marriage overrides the need for all prospective marriages to soberly assess many factors and points of compatibility before entering into marriage. (Puritan and Westminster Divine William Gouge in Of Domestical Duties said “there should be some equality between the parties that are married in Age, Estate, Condition, Piety.”).

We affirm that vast cultural differences, geographical distance of extended family, and language barriers can introduce real challenges to marital unity and compatibility, even among godly, Reformed believers, and that these challenges should not be glossed over or underestimated (for God has ordained marriage to be a help to one another, not a hindrance or burden).

We deny that interracial and cross-cultural marriages should be regarded as presumptively less wise or unwise, and we deny that such marriages are less valid before God.