I Disavow SBC17

One of the unfortunate truths of the modern West is that 90% of everything has been subverted by cultural marxism, including practically every major religious organisation.  This has long been obvious in overtly liberal denominations such as those within the World Council of Churches (WCC).  Sadly, this has become more and more apparent even in so-called “conservative” denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), which despite its reputation for conservatism, has (at least at a leadership level) been a hotbed of cultural marxism for over two decades.  This is made all the more apparent by this proposed resolution to be submitted at the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2017 annual meeting (SBC17) and which will almost assuredly be passed by the assembled delegates out of some misguided sense of “justice.”  The resolution calls on the SBC to condemn the alt-Right and nationalism in general, vomiting out the same laundry list of mean, scary “isms” that you’d find in any crudely drafted anarchist Antifa manifesto somewhere in the lower rent districts of the internet.

Full disclosure: I am a Baptist, but I am not a Southern Baptist.  Instead, I am an Independent, Fundamental Baptist.  So – in theory – I shouldn’t have standing to complain about this.  However, many of the associations I am involved in contain religiously diverse memberships – Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, pagans, agnostics, and more – who do not generally tend to see the finer distinctions between various types of Baptists.  As a result, when the Southern Baptist Convention acts on a set of godless, globalist impulses such as are represented in the resolution in question, it tends to tar other Baptists with its unbiblical and satanic brush.

I will make a detailed presentation of the biblical case for nationalism below – though I shouldn’t need to  since it’s one that most Christians of every denomination understood during the previous nineteen and a half centuries of the existence of Christ’s churches.  Christianity contains within its doctrines a “weak universalistic” message pertaining to the universality of Christ’s atoning sacrifice for sinful man and for the capacity for human beings of all races and nations to place their faith and trust in God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ unto salvation.  However, it is an unbiblical and illogical leap to pass from that to the sort of “strong universalistic” globalist, socially and nationally equalitarian message which modern liberalism implicitly assumes.  In other words, while it is a genuinely Christian message to say that Christ’s blood can be applied to any sinner of any group, it is NOT a genuinely Christian message to take that basic truth and twist it to claim that it means that national borders should be erased, that racial and national distinctions should be disregarded, and so forth.  The latter is not at all implied by the former.  Yet, this is the message which is adopted by even so-called conservatives when they criticise nationalism as they seek to ingratiate themselves with a godless world that increases more and more in its rebellion against every standard and ordinance of God which He has established for the governance of this world.  This is what SBC17 would be doing if it adopted this resolution.

Perhaps most galling is the sheer hypocrisy of this resolution as it pertains to the SBC itself, and to many within that organisation’s leadership.  Let’s be frank – when cultural marxists such as W.D. McKissic condemn “the alt-Right” or “nationalism,” what they really mean is “white males who reject globalism.”  Let’s be honest here – that’s what they’re talking about.  They’re talking about white males (and in most cases the white women they’re married to or are otherwise involved with) who don’t think their countries should be flooded with millions of hostile Third Worlders.  They’re talking about white males who are concerned about the murders and the rape jihads and the crime and the civil disorder and all the rest which Muslim “refugees” have brought to Europe, and even to some parts of Australia and North America.  In essence, they’re talking about white males who don’t want to see the unique goodness of Western civilisation destroyed.  These cultural marxists in the SBC and elsewhere can dress it all up in flowery language about “love” and “equality” and “racial justice” all they want, but what they really mean is that they hate people who want to preserve their own cultures.  If whites support their own cultures, then they’re “racist.”  It’s racist to support the continued prosperity of your own cultures and countries – at least if you’re white.  One would wish that people like McKissic and Russell Moore (President of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission) and the rest would at least engage with enough basic honesty to simply admit that this is what they’re on about.

Their hypocrisy is evident when we consider that at SBC17 itself, there will be events hosted by the Asian American Fellowship, the Fellowship of Native American Christians, the Hispanic Avance Meeting, the National African American Fellowship, the Korean American English Speaking Pastors’ Conference, the Chinese Baptist Fellowship, the Filipino Southern Baptist Fellowship of North America, and others.  They want to have meetings for every racial and ethnic special interest group under their umbrella?  Fine, go right ahead.  But don’t do so while pretending to “oppose racism” (which relies specifically upon recognising national and racial distinctions…which is exactly what membership in a racial special interest fellowship does, it’s the whole basis for the existence of such entities).  Don’t claim you’re “uniting Christians” around the Gospel while having every conceivable racial and ethnic group (other than whites of course) split off into their own conference rooms so they can worship with “their own kind.”

Sadly, while crafting their ridiculous little virtue-signalling resolutions and pretending to a sort of secular piety that sees “anti-racism” as its highest good, these same folks are actively hurting real live people through the sorts of misguided policies for which they advocate.  While Russell Moore burbles on about “compassion” and “responsibility,” the Muslims he’s helped to let into our country are raping five-year old girls in Idaho.  Similarly, “refugees” all across Europe – introduced in part at the instigation of false Christian “ethicists” of Moore’s stripe – are raping, murdering, and looting their way across the continent.  Each and every one of these crimes – every one – is a completely unforced error which did not have to happen and for which religious “leaders” like Moore and his counterparts in churches in other nations will give an account for to God one day.

The other day, the American Conservative ran an article by George Hawley entitled, “Is the Religious Right to Blame for Christianity’s Decline?”  Essentially, his conclusion was that it was.  While conservative, Evangelical denominations resisted the steady decline in membership for a long time, they too have begun to see a precipitous decay in their membership numbers.  Hawley places the blame on the Religious Right’s out-sized participation in socially conservative politics, which he believes served to drive away many nominally affiliated moderate Republicans and younger people from Christianity because it meant that if you were a Christian, you were associated with Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority, and opposition to social progressivism.  This may be the case for the liberal mainline denominations.  Yet, I tend to think that while Hawley is right in observing the trends, he is wrong in what he sees as the specific cause, at least where the decline in Evangelical and conservative denominations is concerned.  Rather than too much opposition to abortion of the homosexual agenda, the problem – and the reason why many are leaving these conservative groups – is too much cuckery and too much compromise with the world system.

Many people see conservative denominations browbeating otherwise regular, rank-and-file members for the “sins” of “their racist past” (and let’s face it – “conservative” groups are just as good at engaging in that twaddle as liberal ones are) and decide that they don’t want to have any part of it anymore.  It’s easy to blame declining numbers on people not wanting to be associated with “anti-gay bigots.”  It’s harder to accept that maybe you’re losing members because you continually hector your membership about how bad their cherished Confederate ancestors were or are constantly promoting the influx of millions of hostile, violent foreigners who have no intention of assimilating, or of even obeying your laws.  You’re a Southern Baptist leader who supposedly represents the people in your denomination – you can take the trouble to vocally proclaim your opposition to “racism” but not to the radical Islamic invasion of your own country?  Many people of good and common sense see that kind of false posturing and reject it.

Anywise, now to the promised biblical case for nationalism.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that if you reject biblical nationalism, you essentially reject God’s order for the nations and are endorsing the satanic movement towards globalism and one-world government.  You are taking an unscriptural, anti-God position.  You may like to think of yourself as a warm and fuzzy bundle of love who is best friends with Jesus and just wants to help everyone, but you are taking a satanic position.  You are deceived.  You are in rebellion against God’s ordained order and purposes in this area.

Okay, on to the meat of the argument.  The basic case for nationalism begins in Genesis 11.  What we see there is the building of the tower of Babel, the confounding of that attempt, and the breakup of mankind through God’s confusion of the languages.  We see the attempt below,

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.  And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” (Genesis 11:1-4)

This was an act of rebellion against God.  In Genesis 9:1, God had commanded Noah and his sons to “…be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.”  This command necessarily involved the spreading out of the patriarchal families and their covering the inhabitable face of the globe.  It is with this in mind that we see the worry of the rebels in 11:4, “lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”  What these rebels were actively trying to prevent was the very thing God had told them to do.  They were, instead, seeking to concentrate themselves into one place in direct opposition to the divine injunction.

This concentration was not an innocent one, driven perhaps by a fear of wild animals or so forth.  They wanted to build a tower “whose top may reach unto heaven.”  In other words, they were seeking to set themselves on an equality with God Himself, to “storm the ramparts” of heaven, so to speak, through their own effort and ability.  They wanted to “make a name” for themselves apart from that which they would participate in as God’s people had they remained loyal to Him.  In Hebrew, sheym (שֵׁם), translated as “name,” means much more than merely a verbal term applied to a person to distinguish them from others.  A “name” in ancient Near Eastern culture was the sum total of your reputation, honour, authority, and position.  In essence, the rebels under Nimrod sought to place themselves under their own authority (or, more likely, under Nimrod’s), to garner their own honour and reputation, rather than submitting to God and yielding themselves to His divine instructions.

God’s response to this affront was to separate the rebels, thus terminating their plans.  He did so by confounding their languages, by initiating a process of linguogenesis that continues to occur to this day.  I personally tend to believe that the initial number of languages was small, that He divided man’s languages into a few “root” languages (perhaps one for Japhethites, one for Semites, and one for Hamites?) which then continued to evolve over the millennia.  This division of languages did far more than make it hard for people to talk to each other.  It actually made it so that different groups of people who speak different languages actually think differently from each other, a principle known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.  As man spread out because he sought to distance himself from neighbours who were now – literally – alien to him, a correlative process of ethnogenesis came into play that led to the continual evolution of human societies and cultures into the vast diversity we see today.

So ethnic separation had its origins as a specific act of God so that man would obey Him rather than rebelling against His authority.  We see elsewhere in Scripture that God continues to deal with nations as separate, saying that they were divided for His purposes.  For instance, in one of Moses’ sermons to the nation of Israel, he said,

“When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 32:8)

God divided the nations, giving each (presumably in their time throughout history) the place where He wanted them to dwell.  He separated mankind, and set their bounds.  He did not want them joining back up together.  He did not want them overrunning one another.  He did not want them mingling with each other, and we can see from history that even when sinful man did just these things, the result was always more ethnic diversity, though perhaps initially done outside of His will.

Lest you be tempted to dismiss all of this as “legalism” or “just Old Testament,” we should note that the same essential teaching appears in the New Testament as well,

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.” (Acts 17:26-27)

It’s ironic that McKissic cites v. 26 in his resolution, because he completely fails to grasp the main point of it.  It is true that God made all nations of one blood.  But it is also true, as the passage says, that He did so for them to dwell on the whole face of the earth, in the places and at the times He appointed, within their own bounds – not getting into everybody else’s countries and places of residence.  All of this was specifically so that they might seek the Lord.  God did not want man repeating what he tried to do at Babel.  God wanted man to seek HIM, not seek to join up with the rest of mankind in an ungodly and false unity so that he could continue his rebellion against the Almighty.

It is not coincidental that the end times one-world government under the Antichrist will exist explicitly as a means of rebelling against God and replacing Him with man’s own authority singularised in the person of the Antichrist (Dan. 11:36, II Thess 2:4, Rev. 13:5-8).  It is likewise not coincidental that the centerpiece of this rebellion will be Babylon – the place of Nimrod’s original revolt.  Globalism is rebellion against God.  To reject biblical nationalism – to reject the principle that God made us into separate nations, and that we should live with our own and not mingle nations – is to support rebellion against God’s authority.

We should note that even in the eternal state, distinct and separate nations will still apparently exist (Rev. 21:4, 22:2).  For whatever inestimable purposes He has to which we are not privy, even those believers who are saved, who are in heaven, will still be accounted as separate nations.  They may – because of the removal of sin and the very principle of sin – be able to finally live and coexist in perfect harmony.  Yet, they will still be separate nations, just as each person will still be the recognisably distinct individual he or she was in this mortal life.

As always, there are efforts by those who reject biblical doctrine to try to twist the meaning of certain passages to support their anti-God globalism.  One such effort is the appeal to various portions of the Old Testament law which enjoin kindness to the strangers living within your gates.  “See?” the liberal will say, “doesn’t God tell us to take in refugees and foreigners and immigrants regardless of legal status???”  The answer is, of course, “No.  He does not.”  To begin with, this same law enjoined that those strangers who dwelt in the land were to essentially assimilate, completely and totally, to the ways of the people of Israel.

And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” (Exodus 12:49)


And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; as ye do, so he shall do. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.” (Numbers 15:4-6)

What we see in both of these passages is the demand for complete assimilation.  If a stranger was going to live in Israel, then he was not only going to be subject to Israel’s legal strictures, but he was going to become an Israelite.  Not just one law, but one manner as well.  He adopted Israel’s religion.  He learned Israel’s language.  He obeyed Israel’s laws.  He took Israel’s culture and folkways as his own.  He made a complete break with his old ways.  This was to be the customary practice for foreigners living in Israel as anything other than, perhaps, temporary merchants doing business or who were there on official business from a foreign king.  This demand for total assimilation explains, indeed, a rather “odd” passage in the law that alternately mystifies and horrifies many liberals and skeptics,

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

So a young Israelite man fights in a war which Israel wins.  They bring home captives (which was actually more humane than typical for the ANE, where often captives were simply raped and killed on the spot).  He sees a beautiful young woman who he desires as his wife.  He doesn’t get to just marry her and have some kind of “mixed” cultural marriage of the kind so often championed in the West today.  Rather, she had to seclude herself, put off all the accoutrements of her old culture and nation (represented by the shaving of the hair and paring of the nails), put on the accoutrements of her new nation Israel (represented by the putting on of the raiment of captivity), and she had to psychologically prepare herself to let her old ways go completely.  Then she could become part of the nation of Israel.

Other examples abound.  In the story of Ruth, we see that Ruth (a Moabitess) returned to Israel with Naomi, telling her, “…thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God” (Ruth 1:16).  Ruth became an Israelite – not a Moabite living in Israel. Also, in Israel’s later existence after the Babylonian captivity, there were many injunctions against marrying “strange wives” (Ezra 10:2,11; Neh. 13:27, etc.).

Clearly, when foreigners came to live in Israel, they were required (not a suggestion) to become Israelites in culture.  They were not to form barrios and ghettos where they kept their old ways, they were not to be lawless, they were not to import their heathen foreign religions, and they definitely weren’t to act arrogantly towards their hosts.  Indeed, the sum total of what the Old Testament has to say on the matter seems to suggest that foreign immigrants to Israel were probably a fairly rare occurrence.  Israel had the duty to bring God’s laws to the heathen nations around them (Deut. 4:5-6, Jonah 1:2, etc.), not rely on immigration as a substitute for missionary evangelism, as many professing Christians think to do today.

Briefly, I’ll address a couple of other passages misused by theological liberals to support open borders, refugees, globalism, etc.  The first is Galatians 3:28 (which gets misused to support a lot of horrible things which God never intended),

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Why, isn’t God telling us here through Paul that when people get saved, all distinctions of ethnicity (e.g. Jew vs. Greek) disappear?  That means there shouldn’t even BE nations anymore!  If everyone became Christians, we could erase all the borders and just live together as one big happy human family!


First off, we know from what was said above that this is a completely ridiculous and contradictory interpretation.  If there will still be distinct and separate nations in heaven during the eternal state, we should not imagine that conversion to Christ on this earth somehow erases national distinctions.  When people get saved, does their gender disappear?  Does their social status suddenly evapourate?  Of course not.  Obviously, the liberal, globalist interpretation is not what the Bible means in this verse.  Rather, it is saying that within the body of the fellowship of the church (and that alone), all can equally partake in salvation afforded through Jesus Christ (i.e what the verse says in its greater context).  Men and women can both be saved.  Jews and Greeks can both be saved.  Slaves and masters can both be saved.  However, as the rest of Scripture indicates, this does not do away with gender roles (there can be no legitimate female clergy, for instance).  Masters and slaves – as Philemon shows us – still exist as masters and slaves, even if in a new and sanctified way.  There is still a hierarchy of authority within each church body – there is no leveling of authority.  In the same way, a person’s culture, language, and other marks of ethnicity (including race) no not simply go away or cease to matter.

It is also common for passages that talk about Christianity unity, such as in Ephesians 4, to be drawn upon as support for essentially globalistic Christianity.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are 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.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)

From this, it is said, we are all part of one body, and therefore nothing about where we live, what our culture is, and so forth matters any more.  However, we should note first that this passage is a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which the general is used to represent the specific (or vice versa).  In this case, the general term “church” (ekklesia, ἐκκλησία) is used to represent each specific local church existing the world over.  It is not, however, teaching the concept of a “universal church,” which is foreign to the scripture, and is in fact completely the opposite of what the word ekklesia actually means (it refers to a called out assembly drawn from a larger population and which comes together in one place, which makes it necessarily local in scope).  Hence, it cannot be legitimising millions of Africans or Latin Americans – even if they were all saved, born again Christians – to move en masse to Europe or North America.  Instead, the specific unity of the church is the unity of the local church – which of course does not preclude an extended sympathy and love for like-minded believers in other local churches, even those thousands of miles away.  I can even see that phyletism would be supported here to a certain degree, since a local church should be made up of the local people – who will naturally share the same culture, language, etc. in nearly all cases.  But it does not in any way, shape, or form give cause for “Christians” to support mass immigration or flooding their countries with hostile Islamic invaders.  Even if all these refugees were Christians, it would not do so.  For those of hostile, violent, and aggressively expansionistic faiths?  Absolutely not.

In closing, far from supporting a globalistic, equalitarian, progressive agenda, genuine Christians must stand firm against the sinful, satanic error of opposing nationalism.  Nationalism is God’s way.  Nationalism is God’s plan and purpose for the nations.  Nationalism is what serves to separate us so that we will all look to God instead of seeking to unite in rebellion.  Those Christians who oppose nationalism and who support the sort of progressive, anti-God thinking that underlies McKissic’s resolution are opposing God Himself.  I would call upon all Southern Baptists who still care about actual, genuine scriptural religion (as well as all others of other denominations who care about this as well) to reject the antichrist globalism of SBC17 and other venues like it, and to stand firm for the truths of God’s Word, even ones like biblical nationalism which may be unpopular with the world at large.


4 thoughts on “I Disavow SBC17

  1. ”To reject biblical nationalism – to reject the principle that God made us into separate nations, and that we should live with our own and not mingle nations – is to support rebellion against God’s authority.”

    Given that nations rises and falls and new peoples emerge all the time. And each kingdom has its allotted time.

    Is it globalism if lets say only 2 nations agree to merge together and become one people through intermarriage becoming a new nation?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It depends. If they made a concerted, premeditated decision to do so, it would probably be due to rebellion. Especially if it was part of a larger plan whose aim was the creation of a global, one-world state, or toward the intermixing of all nations together to create “one people.”

      If was a more “organic” occurrence such as we see throughout history, then probably not, but would be part of God’s action in causing nations to rise and fall, etc. The trick, though, is that this usually happens over the course of centuries and in unplanned directions probably definable only through some application of chaos/complexity theory. Purposefully doing it implies pro-Babelian tendencies.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s