“Racism” is a modern, leftist social construct. It is not a biblically defined sin. And yet every major church body in America, liberal and conservative, gleefully comes to bow the knee to the secular idol of diversity. There is no more sacred idol of the current antichrist regime than the idol of diversity. Without this idol, the entire system falls apart. That is why all institutions are under such pressure to accept it. By refusing to tear down this idol, the churches are complicit in the destruction of Christendom.
In order to better serve this idol the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) has created a page on its official website dedicated to combating “racism.” The LCMS is the largest conservative Lutheran body in the country. It upholds Biblical inerrancy, creationism, an all-male cleargy, and a pro-life position. However, when it comes to the question of race the synod strays quite far from Biblical nationalism and embraces worldly opinion.
The LCMS condemnation of “racism” is full of contradictions, misinterpretations and falsehoods, and yet much of it will likely go unchallenged by LCMS members. Fear of being labelled a “racist” has allowed the “anti-racist” left to get away with astounding lies. The dishonesty of the LCMS on the topic of race is evident from the image displayed at the top of their “anti-racist” webpage. The image shows what are presumably LCMS clergy embracing black activists while bowing their heads in prayer. One of the black activists is holding a sign that reads “hands up, don’t shoot!” This slogan arose from the false narrative that was originally circulated by the media after the justified killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, MO. Even the left-wing media and the Obama Justice Department have now admitted for years that “hands up, don’t shoot” was a lie, and yet the LCMS continues to give credence to this classic example of bearing false witness against the police by prominently displaying this slogan at the top of their “anti-racism” page. This image sets the tone for the rest of the material provided by the LCMS.
Racism: A Christian Response
The LCMS’s most biblically rigorous attempt to condemn “racism” is found in the document Racism: a Christian Response, which is linked near the bottom of the page. Although the document is full of Scripture references, it does not come close to proving that “racism” is a sin. Before delving into the document it is important to step back and consider what exactly it is that white nationalists are pursuing. There is of course a great variety of opinion within white nationalism and the Alt-Right, but the fundamental shared principle is simply this: political advocacy on behalf of one’s ethnic group is morally legitimate. If the LCMS and other “anti-racist” Christians cannot prove that this principle is inherently sinful, then they have no business condemning white nationalism. Given that the Bible defines different nations by ancestry and that various saints throughout Scripture showed a specific concern for their own people, including Jesus himself who brought the Gospel to his own people first, it is impossible to prove that racial consciousness and advocacy are evil. So instead “anti-racist” Christians argue that white nationalism automatically involves hatred or some belief in salvation by race, not grace. These claims about white nationalists are simply untrue. Many of us uphold the traditional Christian teaching on salvation by faith alone, and we do not hate those who are of a different race. While it certainly is true that many secular white nationalists do hate non-whites, it is obvious that this is irrelevant to the inherent moral value of nationalism because there are many people on every side of every political issue who feel hatred for their opponents. This does not justify hatred, but it does show that “anti-racist” Christians are being inconsistent in the application of their arguments. There are certainly plenty of Republicans who truly hate and verbally dehumanize Democrats, but we do not see the LCMS saying that it is sinful to be a Republican. Likewise there are plenty of patriotic Americans who truly hate members of ISIS and Al-Qaeda, but the LCMS has not concluded that therefore we must stop organizing against these terrorist groups. There is not a single valid argument against ethno-nationalism in the Bible, so “anti-racist” Christians are reduced either to bearing false witness against white nationalists by distorting what we actually believe, or to inconsistently applying arguments based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture.
Turning now to the text of the document, the first argument claims that ethno-nationalism is wrong because God created all men from Adam and desires all men to seek him. The proof text offered is from Acts 17. The selective quoting from Scripture is so dishonest that it is outright embarrassing. The document conveniently quotes the first half of Acts 17:26 but omits the second half of the verse! The full verse reads, “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.” This verse clearly states that God established the boundaries of different nations! How can the verse be used to prove that ethnic boundaries are sinful? Obviously it cannot prove this, which is why the second half is omitted. But even if the second half of Acts 17:26 were not in the Bible, this passage would still not prove that ethnic boundaries are sinful. Since when have Lutherans held that common descent from Adam means the mandatory abolition of all earthly distinctions? Does the LCMS hold that it is immoral for two brothers born to the same parents to own separate houses, or does the LCMS hold that it is immoral for a man to have a special concern for the welfare of his own children over the welfare of his nieces and nephews? I have never seen a Lutheran make this argument. As pointed out above, nearly every single “anti-racist” argument is being applied inconsistently.
The document goes on to claim that because all men are God’s creatures it is therefore evil to say that any humans are different from each other:
“In racist ideology…[r]ace, biologically defined, becomes the basis for drawing conclusions concerning aptitudes, abilities and personality characteristics of individuals, for the purpose, in turn, of making statements about the comparative worth of a person as a human being. Scripture teaches, however, that the value of all human beings is grounded ultimately in the value God places upon them. The value of a person is not determined by observable degrees of relative worth.”
This argument is painfully illogical. God indeed created all men, but he created us to be different in countless ways. God is the author of our genetic structure, so there is no way that it could be sinful simply to point out that God gave us different genes. God made some men short, some men tall. Some men are gifted with genius level intelligence, some men are born with severe mental disabilities. To my knowledge, the LCMS has never condemned people for noticing these genetic differences. Only when it comes to the question of race does it suddenly become sinful. The document also carelessly confuses the worth of human beings with respect to various earthly distinctions with their worth before God. It is true that a rich Christian and a poor Christian have equal value in God’s eyes because they both are valued on account of Christ, but it certainly does not follow that the two men are equal with respect to wealth. The same is true for a black Christian and a white Christian. Both men are valued by God on account of Christ, but it does not follow that the two men are therefore genetically identical.
The document continues:
“Racism grounds the identity and security of human life in self rather than God, in creature rather than the Creator, apart from whom a human being has no identity or security. Self-indulgent pride in ‘race,’ therefore, must be regarded as idolatry in one of its crassest forms. It is an attempt to be ‘like God.'”
Once again we notice the inconsistency in the application of these arguments. There are indeed plenty of white nationalists who put too much trust in their race, but there are certainly just as many patriotic Americans who put too much trust in their country. There are many for whom identifying as an American patriot is more important than identifying as a Christian, but we do not see the LCMS saying that everyone who identifies as an American patriot is guilty of the “crassest idolatry.” Any earthly identity can become an idol, but it does not follow that every earthly identity is evil. If the LCMS were serious about there being no legitimate identity outside of our relationship with God, then the synod would call for the abolition of national governments, the nuclear family, distinct vocations, social and professional clubs, and private corporations, since all of these groups contribute to our overall identity and all of them can become idols. So why isn’t the LCMS calling for a radical Anabaptist communism to free us from these idols?
“In Jesus Christ, God became a Man and so identified Himself fully with every member of the human family…Any claim that there is something about the nature of another human being as such that renders that person to be of inferior value not only denies the Biblical doctrine of creation, but also calls into question what the Scriptures teach about the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. God sent His Son Jesus Christ to be the Savior of all human beings, in whatever nation or culture they may be found.”
There is great irony in the fact that the LCMS claims that “racism” distorts the evangelical doctrines of grace, when it is in fact their version of “anti-racism” that does so. The Bible teaches that we are saved by faith in the vicarious atonement of Christ, period. None of our own efforts and none of our own natural gifts can reconcile us with God. So if natural gifts are irrelevant to the Gospel, how can it be a denial of the Gospel to say that certain individuals or certain groups are superior with respect to certain natural gifts? The LCMS is claiming that we are all completely equal, and that if anyone suggests that certain groups are inferior in intelligence or other areas, then that person is suggesting that God does not want to save those groups. By doing so they are implicitly assuming that our own natural worth contributes to our salvation in some way. On the contrary, it in fact magnifies the Gospel to say, “yes, blacks are inferior, violent, unintelligent and savage, but God still wants them to be saved!”
Just because natural distinctions are irrelevant to our salvation, that does not mean that we must deny all such God-created distinctions. My salvation is not affected by where I decide to build my house, but that does not mean that I should not examine the quality of the ground before building. God created the whole earth and he did not make every piece of ground equally suitable for building a house. Likewise not every race of mankind is equally capable of building and maintaining advanced societies.
What is probably the most interesting section of the page is called “Condemning racism.” This section contains a timeline of official LCMS resolutions condemning “racism.” I can only imagine that the goal of including the timeline is to prove that the LCMS has a long history of fighting “racism,” but the omissions from the timeline prove something very different. I am by no means an expert on the history of the LCMS, but I have to imagine that the compilers of this timeline would have included anything from the synod’s history that might support their case, and yet the earliest resolution on the timeline comes from 1971! That is, the LCMS never officially condemned “racism” until the Civil Rights movement was already over! Consider all of the events that occurred between 1954 and 1970 that did NOT inspire the LCMS to pass resolutions condemning “racism”: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which ended school segregation, the death of Emmett Till (1955), Martin Luther King’s march on Washington (1963), Loving v. Virginia (1967) which legalized interracial marriage, and even the assassination of Martin Luther King (1968). None of this, apparently, moved the LCMS to pass an official resolution condemning “racism.” It would seem that the leaders of the LCMS during the 1960s were hesitant to support the civil rights movement. This is quite possibly because they, like almost all conservative Protestants of that era, viewed the movement with deep suspicion. At the very least this silence during the 1960s proves that the civil rights movement was a worldly phenomenon, not a movement that was driven by biblically orthodox churches. “Civil rights” for blacks were promoted by the same communists and other radicals who sought to subvert all other aspects of traditional Christian civilization. These radicals fought for black liberation, feminism, homosexuality, pornography, drug use, fornication and every other manner of moral filth. Prior to the 1960s conservative Christians were opposed to all of these things, yet today the leadership of conservative denominations try to claim the black liberation of the era as part of their own heritage, contrary to the historical record.
Another interesting aspect of the timeline is the silence on LCMS activity from the Civil War era. The synod was founded in 1847 in Chicago, IL, and was largely made up of German immigrants and their descendants. Given that it was founded in a Northern state, and that German immigrants at the time heavily favored the Union cause, one might expect the early leaders of the synod to be firm abolitionists. However, after a little bit of digging we find that the opposite is the case.
The most important figure in the history of the LCMS is undoubtedly C.F.W. Walther. Walther was both the first president of the synod (from 1847-1850 and again from 1864-1878) and the first president of Concordia Seminary, the synod’s main educational institution. He continues to exert a strong influence over conservative American Lutheranism to this day. Far from being an abolitionist, Walther clearly taught that abolitionism was an evil belief system.
In 1863, at the height of the Civil War, Walther published articles condemning “the dangerous abolitionist movements which are anti-Gospel and anti-Christ,” and argued that neither the Bible nor the great Lutheran theologians define slavery as a sin. In these articles he offers a very insightful critique of how humanism has infiltrated Christian teaching, and explains that the cry for equality is the most obvious byproduct of this infiltration:
“It is an irrefutable fact that humanism has not only supplanted Christianity among a large part of the current population, it has also infected Christian theology in its very inner core, has poisoned and weakened it. We define humanism as the belief in a human ideal, a belief that man within himself has the ability to develop into a state of completeness and achieve happiness. Therefore, in order to reach this ideal state nothing else is needed than to grant each person as much room as possible to develop freely and without restraint. Freedom and equality, equal rights, equal possessions, equal enjoyment and pleasure, are thus the goal of man’s striving, the attainment of which will eradicate poverty and suffering from this earth. Happiness will have found its domicile on earth, there will be heaven on earth.
This humanism is as old as the fallen world itself. As soon as man had fallen away from God, he became aware of the bitter consequences of his sin, of the curse under which God had placed this earth because of him. Despite all that still had remained for man, he felt dissatisfied, unhappy, and wretched. However, instead of recognizing his sin as the cause of his wretchedness, seeking to return to God and His help, he saw the consequences themselves as the cause, and deemed that he could achieve happiness by gaining what this world has to offer…
It was no other spirit but the spirit of humanism which promised Adam heaven on earth, promised to relieve him from his earthly burdens, thereby making all men into abolitionists and communists, with equal rights and possessions, making all superiority in these things a punishable transgression.“
Walther thus equates abolitionism with communism, and states that both are emblematic of our fallen, sinful nature. Walther also had a clear understanding of the specific historical development of humanist philosophy that led to 19th century abolitionism. On the French Revolution Walther writes:
“[Humanism] developed into the evermore common theories of undeniable, inherent human rights, of inherent freedom and equality, that only the democratic-republican constitution as well as the socialist and communist theories of the ‘new times’ were acceptable. These theories came to fruition in the world-shaking catastrophe of the first French revolution whose well-known slogan was ‘freedom, equality, and brotherhood. They incorporated these tenets in their constitution of 1791 as the basis for their model state, and proclaimed that ‘human rights’ was the most important principle of all state laws. It is known what pinnacle of human and national happiness this grand humanistic experiment did achieve. It was a happiness in which all of hell’s murderous spirits triumphed over the world with their demonic laughter against humanity itself.“
Walther is not afraid to declare the satanic nature of abolitionism. He points out that many of the clergy who supported abolitionism were also involved in freemasonry and deism, and that when Christians join hands with abolitionists they are working together with people who hate Christianity and wish to destroy it:
“Reverends of all so-called denominations are members of all lodges. They not only assert their free-mason, deistic philanthropism in the hidey-holes of their meetings, but also from their pulpits, their publications and their administrations…
We therefore hold that abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of nationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. It is a brother of modern socialism, Jacobinism and communism. Together with the emancipation of women it is the rehabilitation of the flesh. As proof of this blood-relationship it suffices to point not only to its history, but also to the close union between abolition-minded representatives of Christianity and the abolitionist tendencies of anti-Christians and radical revolutionaries in church, state, and home. The more their non-religiosity increases and reaches the pinnacles of theoretical atheism and indifferentism, the more fanatically they fight for the principle of slave emancipation…
How could it be possible that these enemies of Christianity and religion per se, all those who are intent on doing away with the existing religious, political, and economical order of things to realize their humanistic utopia, that especially they would be so enthusiastic for something good and holy, for ‘the final reason of Christianity’ and so greatly exert themselves?“
This question should be directly asked of the LCMS leadership today. If fighting “racism” is such a Christian imperative, how can it be that the most strident, self-identified enemies of Christ are such rabid supporters of the cause? How can you support the same objectives as left-wing terrorist organizations like Antifa?
After clearly demonstrating that Scripture affirms the lawfulness of slavery and nowhere supports abolitionism, Walther pointedly states:
“Truly, we cannot understand how a believing Christian can read this and still agree with the humanists of our times that slavery and serfdom are unjust. We assert that anyone who still has regard for God’s word will be pierced by these words into his very heart. Anyone dreaming this modern world’s dream of abolition should perceive these words as God’s slaps, waking him from his dream.”
I would speak the exact same words to any Christians who think that the Bible anywhere defines “racism” as a sin. Such Bible passages simply do not exist.
If Walther was opposed to abolitionism, how much more would he be opposed to the civil disobedience of the 1960s, or the rioting of the Black Live Matter movement? The LCMS has fallen very far from the Biblical teaching of its founders.
Racism, Dealing With It
After the Racism: A Christian Response document, the most intellectually substantial offering on the page is an article called Racism, Dealing With It by Leopoldo Sanchez, who teaches at Concordia Seminary and is the Director of the Center for Hispanic Studies.
The article is deceptively Lutheran. By this I mean that the author is careful to avoid any statements that too obviously reek of SJW screeching, and he uses a liberal amount of language reminiscent of traditional Lutheran teaching on the depravity of sinful man and his need for God’s grace. Yet underneath this Lutheran veneer we find the same old humanism and egalitarianism that Walther warned of.
“Our sinful flesh gladly finds ways to avoid people of other races or paint them in a suspicious light. Or it simply fails to acknowledge racism as a real problem in our society, or the pain people who have suffered discrimination because of the color of their skin go through on a regular basis.”
How is it the “sinful flesh” that paints members of certain groups in a suspicious light? It is a simple matter of fact that certain races are more likely to commit certain crimes. It is not the sinful flesh that leads us to the conclusion that black neighborhoods are more dangerous than white neighborhoods. As is often the case with “anti-racist” arguments, Sanchez does not address the actual facts and statistics that lead to our opinions on racial differences. He simply denounces as sinful the mere noticing of these differences. Sanchez also brings out the tired trope of racial feeling being based on skin color. Race is not skin color, race is shared ancestry. This is its definition, both historically and in the Bible. Skin color is only an incidental feature of race, because in many cases skin color can be useful in determining who one’s ancestors are. Furthermore, a difference in skin color is certainly not the defining feature in all cases of ethnic conflict. The Ulster-Scots and the Irish Catholics have the same skin color. So do all of the innumerable African tribes that frequently war with each other.
“The appropriate response to this state of affairs is neither claiming to have ‘no racist bone in my body’ nor appealing to one’s innocence or ignorance about America’s so-called original sin. Nor will winning an argument about whether racism is a personal or systemic sin save anyone either.
The sinful flesh finds all kinds of sneaky ways to avoid dealing head on with racism and ethnocentrism. So the best first response is simply to repent: ‘We have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed, by what we have done and by what we have left undone.’ And then to wait for God’s response, trusting in his mercy: ‘I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ In this cyclical rhythm of repentance, of contrition and absolution, Christians learn to live daily under the sign of their baptism into Christ, drowning the sinful flesh so that a new creature may rise every day.”
Sanchez’s strategy seems to be to so overwhelm the reader with Lutheran-sounding statements on sin, repentance and absolution that the reader does not notice the glaring problem in the argument: there is no definition of “racism” or ethnocentrism, nor any Biblical argument showing that “racism” or ethnocentrism are sinful.
Sanchez speaks of, “attitudes toward people of different races and ethnicities based on stereotypes and myths perpetuated by sensationalist media.” Once again, he does not seek to debunk these “myths.” What “stereotypes” is he talking about here? That blacks are more likely than whites to be violent criminals? That Jews have a disproportionate influence in politics, finance, academia and the media? These are not stereotypes, these are irrefutable facts. Black pastors openly talk about the black crime problem. Jewish publications openly talk about Jewish over-representation in positions of power and debate about how best to address the issue publicly. It is precisely because these facts are irrefutable that “anti-racists” hardly ever present any facts and figures in their arguments. Their only weapon is the accusation of “racism.”
“Racism is an expression of egocentricity. It is a love of self which only loves those who look like self.”
As pointed out above, physical resemblance is not the defining feature of race, but an incidental feature of having shared ancestry. “Anti-racist” Christians like to talk about appearance because it makes nationalists seem superficial. It makes out nationalists to be obsessed with the surface and negligent of the inner character of individuals. Once again this is false. Nationalism is based on the fact that a group with shared ancestry is an extended family. We have a preferential love for our family members not because they look like us, but because there is stronger loyalty within a family, and because families have shared experiences that promote greater empathy and easier communication than can exist amongst strangers. Every argument used by “anti-racists” to condemn nationalism can just as logically be applied to love of family. If Sanchez were being consistent, he would have to condemn Christians who want each nuclear family to have their own home rather than live in communal dorms. Sanchez also promotes the fallacy that having preferential love for certain individuals or groups implies that one cannot have any love for others. This is why he inserts the word “only” into the above sentence. He does not say that nationalists love foreigners less than they love their own people, but that nationalists do not love foreigners at all. Basically Sanchez’s position boils down to the ridiculous leftist slogan “borders=hate.” In opposition to Sanchez’s position that says love for all must be equal or it is not love at all, the Bible says that even amongst his early followers there was one disciple for whom Christ had a special love (John 21:7), and the Bible exhorts us to love all men and especially the brethren, i.e., fellow believers (1 John 3:14). The special love that we have for family members and members of the Church does not imply that we hate all others.
“We begin to see life in terms of the pain of others, including those whose race and ethnicity makes them the object of hurtful words and acts, and dare to speak on their behalf and defend them when they are portrayed in the worst possible light or their lives are threatened in some way—even if we suffer for it.”
Jewish Hollywood and all major news media outlets portray non-whites in the most favorable light imaginable. Non-white crimes and anti-social behavior are covered up or severely underreported. Hollywood never tires of distorting reality by portraying blacks as heroic, moral, wise and competent. Hollywood even brought the fantasy land of Wakanda to the big screen so that blacks could pretend to have a functioning country somewhere in the world. Sanchez’s description of a group that is hated and marginalized because of their race applies more to white nationalists than to anyone else in American society today. We are the ones who are constantly slandered and ridiculed, the ones who are unfairly targeted and persecuted by the courts and law enforcement. We are the ones who are constantly being told by the public schools, Hollywood, academia, etc., that the world will be a better place when our race has lost its power and disappeared.
“Racism is a form of exclusion and aims at alienation, a sin that seeks to destroy the human hope for acceptance and belonging. It teaches that humans can justify their lives—their worth and value—before others on the basis of the color of their bodies and the privileges accompanying their racial identity.”
This appears to be the closest that Sanchez gets to trying to define the sin of “racism,” but once again he offers no Scriptural evidence. The concepts of “racism” and “alienation” are not defined as sins in the Bible, or even mentioned at all as far as I can tell. We can also ask why the individual’s hope for acceptance and belonging is sacrosanct. Is it a sin not to hire someone for a job based on their lack of ability or relevant work history? Is it a sin to turn down a proposition of marriage for any reason at all? Certainly the human desire for acceptance and belonging is nowhere stronger than when one proposes marriage to another. Sanchez would draw none of these conclusions. He is not interested in applying his arguments consistently and logically, but only in tearing down any vestige of white identity. It is also important to note how Sanchez has slipped in the word “justify” here. One of the core teachings of Lutheranism is that we are justified by faith alone, and that nothing else about us, no natural gift or personal achievement, can justify us before God. By suggesting that “racists” think they are “justified” by their race, Sanchez has planted the idea that “racism” must deny the Christian doctrine of justification. He builds on this idea further on.
“God’s house is wide and all races have a place at the table. Through [the] stories of divine welcome [in the Gospel], we learn that justification before God is not by race but by grace.”
All Christian nationalists would completely agree with theses statements, as would our nineteenth century ancestors who oversaw the great colonial and missionary expansion from Europe and America throughout the non-white world. And yet this universality of the kingdom of God has no bearing on the question of whether different races have different natural gifts, nor does it have any bearing on the question of how political boundaries are to be drawn. The suggestion that Christian nationalists believe that we are justified before God by our race is an utter lie and slander. There are many whites who will end up in hell, and many non-whites who will go to heaven. This is because all men, regardless of race, are justified only by faith in the blood of Christ. I have not met a Christian nationalist who claims that whites who despise Christ and his Gospel are justified before God, and Sanchez does not provide any proof of this suggestion.
“When people of different races fight against each other, or more likely (and perhaps problematically) keep their distance from each other, we have all lost respect for God’s creation. We no longer acknowledge that when we stand before another human being we stand before God’s own creation.”
Would Sanchez use this same argument to say that war is always immoral? Don’t all soldiers stand before God’s creation when they face the enemy? Isn’t it therefore “problematic” for soldiers to kill each other? As has been demonstrated already, the author uses arguments that would, if applied consistently, lead to total pacifism and the erasure of all national and political boundaries.
“Racism gets in the way of proper devotion to God because it denies the beauty of his creation, which comes in no other way than in many different colors.”
I agree with Sanchez that many deny God’s created racial order, but it is not the “racists” who do so. Rather it is the “anti-racists” who insist that racial diversity must be destroyed through unlimited immigration and race-mixing. It is also curious that Sanchez here seems to contradict what is said at the very top of the LCMS “racism” page:
“The separation of people into nations, languages and groups is a result of the fall into sin (Gen. 11), and is one of the aspects of a broken creation God restored through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
How can we appreciate the beauty of God’s creation in racial diversity, when such diversity is a curse resulting from sin? If the beauty of racial diversity is to be admired as God’s handiwork, how is it sinful to set up political boundaries ensuring that such diversity survives into the future? We pray that such racial diversity does survive into the future through the acceptance of the Gospel and Biblical nationalism by all tribes and tongues.
* * *
At Faithful Nation we share the Lutheran belief that fallen man is depraved and sinful, and that salvation comes through faith in Christ alone. We appreciate that the LCMS has largely upheld this teaching against many of the assaults of humanism. However, we firmly say that the LCMS has not successfully defended itself from all humanist ideas. When it comes to the question of nationalism, the LCMS has completed abandoned the Bible and sided with the antichrist humanists. The LCMS “racism” page endorses the false Black Lives Matter narrative that bears false witness against police forces across the country, it condemns people for simply noticing facts about group behavior, and worst of all it distorts the doctrines of grace by suggesting that any rejection of humanist globalism is sinful and necessarily leads to a faulty understanding of justification. We pray that the LCMS and all other Christians would repent of their humanism and return to the pure Word of God as the only rule of faith and standard of morality.