Are white Evangelicals America’s only hope?
White evangelicals are the most hated people in America. That’s undeniable.
They are Christian, they are conservative, and they are white. So they are a triple threat to our culture’s anti-Christian, anti-conservative, and anti-white agenda.
Woke people haven’t been secretive about this. As books like White Christian Privilege suggests, the most intersectionally oppressive people in America are white evangelicals.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Of course, white evangelicals aren’t the only Christians our culture hates. Anyone who genuinely loves Christ and therefore submits to what the Bible says about justice, race, gender, and sexuality — will be hated in our culture. The world hates Christ, therefore they hate Christians (John 15:18).
However, though our culture hates black evangelicals like me, my supposedly intersectional identity makes me less oppressive than white evangelicals. In fact, according to critical race theory — my master isn’t Jesus Christ, it’s white evangelicals. That’s why my social media pages are filled with daily comments from people saying I’m simply a tool for white evangelicals.
So although our culture hates black evangelicals like me, they hate white evangelicals even more. This hatred has become so common, it’s even infiltrated the Church.
That’s why last year, I said:
“White evangelicals are my brothers and sisters. They are the relatives of every believer. If you attack them, you’re attacking my family. If you attack them, you’re attacking God’s children. If you hate them, maybe it’s because you’re not part of the family.”
But just as white evangelicals are not oppressors, they are also not saviors. They are not the only hope for moral sanity in America.
Earlier this week, Stephen Wolfe — the author of The Case For Christian Nationalism — shared a tweet saying:
“White evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America.”
His words were accompanied by a meme of Norman Rockwell’s free speech painting. Which suggests he was probably aware he was making a controversial statement.
Naturally, his tweet elicited correction, rebuke, and accusations of racism from many people, including me. I said:
“I enjoyed meeting you last year, sir. I’m also looking forward to finally sharing my review of your book. But I won’t mince words: this is pathetic and racist. This is what happens when we attempt to create an identity or a tribe based on ethnicity, instead of Christ.”
I confess that since I’ve met him in person, perhaps I should have reached out to him privately before I shared my tweet. That may have been a more gracious, kind, and effective way of winning my brother.
Also, I think calling his tweet “pathetic” may have been too harsh. To be honest I’m not quite sure that it is. But since I’m unsure, it’s wiser and more humble to assume it means I sinned against him — especially since he’s older than me. If he was my father-in-law, I probably wouldn’t have corrected him so sharply (1 Timothy 5:1). I have pursued his forgiveness.
However, that doesn’t change the nature of his words. His tweet explicitly shows partiality for white evangelicals.
The Lord knows — and I think you all know — how much I despise our culture readily and lazily accusing innocent people of racism. But I am not convinced Stephen Wolfe is innocent.
That doesn’t mean I’m suggesting he’s a practicing, unrepentant racist. However, just as I have been guilty of showing partiality against white evangelicals in the past — other people, including Stephen Wolfe, can be guilty of occasionally showing partiality toward white evangelicals.
Hours after his original tweet, Wolfe claimed he was simply referring to white evangelicals as a voting bloc. But that doesn’t make any sense. If he was sincerely referring to white evangelicals as a voting bloc, then why didn’t he say white evangelicals are the “largest” bulwark instead of saying they’re the “lone” bulwark against moral insanity in America?
If he was sincerely referring to white evangelicals as a voting bloc, then he’s essentially saying the conservative votes of black, Latino, Asian, and all evangelicals are completely irrelevant.
Wolfe and his defenders also suggest he was only making a sociological argument. But that assumes sociological arguments aren’t theological. Sociological truth is also theological truth. If it’s sociologically true that white evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity, then it’s also theologically true.
Still, even if it were possible that his tweet was strictly sociological — what does that achieve, anyway? Just because the world presents white evangelicals as a uniquely bad group doesn’t mean we need to defend white evangelicals as a uniquely good group.
We shouldn’t respond to worldliness with worldliness. We shouldn’t repay evil with evil.
Some people also say Wolfe’s words shouldn’t be taken literally. They say his words are generic. But that’s clearly not true. The word “lone” makes his words specific.
Even if we hope all things, believe all things, and assume the best of our brother’s motives — as we should — it doesn’t change the explicit meaning of his words. So why hasn’t he humbly said he worded himself poorly?
Especially since there were already concerns that he might be a kinist because of some of his associations and some of his words in The Case For Christian Nationalism.
Nevertheless, white evangelicals are not the lone bulwark against the moral insanity in America — not politically, not sociologically, not spiritually.
When Israel abandoned God during King Ahab’s (and Queen Jezebel’s) reign, Elijah said to God, “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left” (Romans 11:3).
But God said: “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal” (Romans 11:4).
White evangelicals are not alone. God has a remnant of black, Latino, Asian, and other evangelicals who have not bowed the knee to Baal.
They might be relatively small in number compared to white evangelicals, but that doesn’t mean white evangelicals are alone.
Whether it’s America, Canada, or anywhere else in the world — there is only one kind of light that shines in this dark culture. There is only one kind of salt that preserves good in this decaying culture.
Politically, sociologically, or theologically — there is only one bulwark against moral insanity: the Church.
Originally published at Slow to Write.
Samuel Sey is a Ghanaian-Canadian who lives in Brampton, a city just outside of Toronto. He is committed to addressing racial, cultural, and political issues with biblical theology, and always attempts to be quick to listen and slow to speak.
