Dear sir,
I’ve had your response to my arguments on my radar for several months now, but was unsure if I would get around to addressing it. As it has been published in Christian News alongside my arguments, it now seems worthwhile. Truth be told, it was your draft of the overture, To Uphold the Scriptural Teaching of “Generations/Lineages”; To Reject the Modernistic Teaching of “Races” that inspired Old Lutherans to propose the Race Debate to begin with, so it is fitting that I engage with you at least once.
Your comment, which originally appeared on Rev. Wolfmueller’s blog, is reproduced below, with my remarks following.
Rev. Warren Graff’s Comment
Okay, a quick take on the Linnaeus argument.
It purposely confuses the idea of “race.” The real Linnaeus, Carl Linnaeus (d. 1778), had four fixed races, Europaeus, Americanus, Asiaticus, Africanus. (Note, Linnaeus did not use the word “fixity”—the term was applied to him in following generations to describe what he taught, and in that way it is helpful, accurate shorthand.)
But Cosplay Linnaeus has how many fixed races? Going by what he gives us under the heading of “The Taxonomy of Man,” in ¶10 he has an elastic use of race, with no fixity (and, as mentioned, the fixity of race important in the classification of Carl Linnaeus). Cosplay Linnaeus is using race for Nation/Israel, and for Hebrew, and for Shemite. But not for human race. This is, at best, a fallacy of slight of hand. If, for instance, Corey Mahler tells me not to marry outside of my “race”, does this any longer have meaning? If an American wife came from presumably Prussian Germans (we might not know for sure, and most wouldn’t even care), and the American husband came, presumably, from Stuttgart region, did they marry each other outside of race? According to Carl Linnaeus, no. According to Cosplay Linnaeus, yes (for Stuttgart region and Prussian are not compatible according to his sometime use of race). But this is only if you use the word the way Cosplay Linnaeus uses it, for surely Cosplay Linnaeus would lose the continuity of his use of the word, and would then deny that his system would judge it to be wrong for a Stuttgart region guy to marry a Prussian German gal.
Earlier, in the short ¶ directly preceding the “The Taxonomy of Man” heading, Cosplay Linnaeus equates “Race’ with people group, saying that race is “modernity’s euphemism.” First, at least he admits we are dealing with categories of modernity here by using the terminology of race theory, but, second, he gets modernity wrong (if modernity is to have any meaning).
Around ¶ 4 under the “The Taxonomy of Man” heading—Cosplay Linnaeus gives the distinction of “morphological likeness” (which tracks with the Nazi practice of Phrenology), and ties it to heritable traits. But this is where the Wolfmueller analysis of finding family lineage according to family/clan/tribe, but not according to “race” is brilliantly helpful. As Wolfmueller rightly notes, race (as normally used) is immutable. I.e., it has a “fixity,” according to Carl Linnaeus-type categories (although he is not giving it as immutable, he does hold that it has a fixity over time—in other words, the real Linnaeus does not end up as malicious in his race theory as we see in Cosplay Linnaeus and Mahler).
So, what is Cosplay’s final definition for the word race? It would seem he insists on floating the word out there with no real anchor, so it can be used however he wants at a given need in the argument. More to the point, when Mahler/Stone Choir says I should not marry outside of my race (no interracial marriage), is this instruction for me not to marry a Prussian German (who would be, indeed, outside of my race if I am Stuttgart area German, for at least one of Cosplay Linnaeus’s definitions), or just instruction that I can’t marry a woman of the Americanus, Asiaticus, or Africanus races, according to the classifications of Carl Linnaeus? Can I marry a Russian girl? An English?
Since Stone Choir’s point about race hits most profoundly at the point of marriage, at the mandate given in the Garden of Eden, this is not a small point. Listening to Mahler, it would seem he defends himself by liberally using the classification of European. Why? Shouldn’t Germans marry Germans and Brits, Brits? Cosplay Linnaeus liberally uses the historical record of tribes marrying within, or close proximity, to tribes (which historically tends to be evident), but they are using this not as historical description, but as Divine prescription. If Divine prescription, then we need a definition of race which will let me know when I would be guilty of the so-called sin of interracial marriage. And that definition of race needs to be grounded in law (Divine law), not in historical observation of some sort of tribal tendency.
Ultimately, here is the problem, it seems to me, with dialoguing with such as Cosplay Linnaeus: His argument depends on a Definitional Dodge, what might be referred to as definitional obfuscation or conceptual obfuscation. When Wolfmueller uses the word race in this conversation, he is using it with reference to the way Stone Choir is using it when they say, No interracial marriage. This is not different than the way it is commonly used in our current culture( i.e., race means: white, black, Asian, or Native American). And this tracks with race theory, with Carl Linnaeus, Kant, etc. But when Cosplay Linnaeus uses the word “race,” we get these long explanations of family, tribe, clan, nations, etc., which is where we see his definitional obfuscation, and at the end of the day, this will not let me know if I can marry a Russian girl, or maybe a girl from North Africa but not one from central Africa, etc. Because, we never had a clean, defensible, definition of “race,” but only this floating word which could mean tribe, or clan, or family, or nation (nation in the post-Westphalia, post-Enlightenment sense, but not nation in the sense of Matthew 28?—it’s clearly not clear).
How to dialogue with this? Wolfmueller is helpful in pointing out real examples of marriage in Scripture (Rahab, Ruth, etc.) where biological race is unknown (or uninteresting), but race distinction (if we must use that modernistic word) is the distinction of the race of justification by faith vs. the race of justification by man (whether by works of man or biology of man). Which is the same distinction as Israel (those justified by Yahweh’s election) vs. Gentile (those justified by works). So, we will know Ruth’s “race” by her confession of faith. And this tracks with Wolfmueller’s profound point of biological race being immutable, while “race” meaning the people/nation of God is known by the spoken Word (spoken by God—“my people”—and confessed by those of the race of faith). Note: Ruth by biology was of Moabite “race” (remember, Cosplay Linnaues had listed “race” as denoting nation, or tribe, or clan), but by the declaration of the Word, she was Israelite; the Word here was spoken concerning her marriage (the Lord’s Word: the two become one flesh), and this was recognized by her redeemer, Boaz, who also had faith in the Word.
At the end of the day, when considering my neighbor, Cosplay Linnaeus wants to have me looking at my neighbor—i.e., my neighbor’s address on Earth (Europe or Africa, etc.) and my neighbor’s skin color compared to mine—and not have me look at the One who justifies my neighbor (behold the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world”). Here the modernistic doctrine of race theory has replaced the doctrine of justification.
Linnaeus’ Response
The idea that Carl Linnaeus believed human varieties (he never used the term “race”) to be “fixed” is considered dubious. But his idiosyncratic views on race are hardly relevant to this debate in any case. As the Lutheran founder of modern taxonomy, his name was the natural choice for my moniker; don’t read too much into it.
Rather than say my use of race is “elastic,” I think “telescopic” gets at it better. That is, each section collapses upwards and is subsumed by a greater circle of the Venn Diagram. “Fixity” of race, according to my definition at least, is not a defensible view in light of the capacity of living things for hybridization. Ethnogenesis, which occurs when members of one defined population mix with members of one or more other defined populations (such as has generated the Métis people of Canada, American blacks, and Mestizos of Mexico), creates a new race in aggregate. This is well understood. And, rest assured, I will have more to say about this in my forthcoming closing statement.
You say that I don’t use the term “race” for the human race, but that is clearly false. To quote myself from my opening statement:
It is likewise technically accurate to call mankind “the race of Adam”. Mankind, Adamkind, is the ultimate race, if you will, under which all others are subsumed. We might do well to call the race of Adam “the terminal race”, insofar as there are no others at its level, nor above it.
My contention is that the term “race” is not limited to the terminal race of Adam, Mankind, humanity, or whatever you want to call us, not that it’s not a valid use of the term. The fallacy here is not mine, but yours for putting words in my mouth.
As regards Mahler, his position on miscegenation could not be more irrelevant to this debate on whether race exists. But as long as we’re talking about it, according to my understanding on Mahler’s position, he would be chiefly concerned with marrying a race which had developed on a different continent than one’s own. He may perhaps possess a lesser concern for marrying a member of a race which, while developing on the same continent, nevertheless had little history of intermarriage with one’s own, rendering children of the type produced by such a union an underrepresented oddity. You’re welcome to reach out to him for comment or clarification, but I myself of course have not made any claims with regard to the rightness or wrongness of miscegenation.
In regard to intermarriage between a man from Stuttgart and a woman of Prussia, you are correct that such a union would be “interracial” according to the very most technical definition of race that I employ but, then again, so would any marriage where the bride and groom are not full siblings. As I argued in my opening statement, though, this use of race becomes tedious quickly in an “if every level of human grouping-by-heritability is a race, then nothing is” sort of way. Therefore, race is almost always reserved for much more macro-level groupings of men.
“But Linnaeus,” comes the rebuttal, “at what precise level does the grouping become capital R Race and not just a technical-race? Gotcha!”
You may as well ask at what precise amount grains of sand become a heap. You want to crucify me over the existence of the Sorites Paradox, yet you yourself know a forest when you see it, and not because you counted all of the trees.
Now, here is a paragraph which I have been keen to comment on more than any other, where you say,
Earlier, in the short paragraph directly preceding the “The Taxonomy of Man” heading, Cosplay Linnaeus equates “Race” with people group, saying that race is “modernity’s euphemism.” First, at least he admits we are dealing with categories of modernity here by using the terminology of race theory, but, second, he gets modernity wrong—if modernity is to have any meaning.
I know you are not an idiot, Rev. Graff, but I must point out your profound lapse of reading comprehension here. It was already pointed out to you on X, but you never owned up to it.
In my opening statement I said this:
On this point I know Wolfmueller and I have complete and total agreement: That God took one man (Adam), and through his descendants created the differentiated people groups of the world.
And the English language provides for us another word, for which “people group” has become modernity’s euphemism: Race.
As you can see, I was not at all calling race “modernity’s euphemism.” I was quite plainly calling “people group” modernity’s euphemism for race.
What’s funnier is that this section was meant for you, as your overture (referenced at top) makes much of the assertion that race is a product of modernism (using it along with “modern” and “modernistic” a combined total of twelve times). Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as it is the rejection of race that is the hallmark of modernism. However, because race is an inescapable aspect of the created order, and one must still have a term for the various groupings of peoples in order to speak coherently about mankind, “people groups” became modernity’s euphemism. You’ve got it twisted one hundred and eighty degrees.
You—while doing your due diligence to prove Godwin’s Law—are opposed to the idea of morphological likeness being a feature of race, but (if I read you correctly) you’re very accepting of it as a feature of families, clans, and tribes. My argument is that Race is supra these categories, as it performs the same function of grouping according to consanguinity, only on a more macro scale. I can only conclude that you don’t understand my argument in the slightest.
Regarding the immutability of race, you seem again to be confusing categories. With regard to an individual, their race is immutable. They were born to the parents they were born to, with the genetic portion they were given, and this cannot be changed—it’s immutably part of who they are. In the course of human events, when different populations intermix, ethnogenesis occurs and the resultant population is no longer the same race as their forbearers. Hence, at the individual level, race is immutable. At the level of the population, race can be highly mutable—depending upon mating decisions over time.
You keep harping on the range of applicability of the word race as I’ve argued for it lexically, so I will give you a taste of my closing statement. You and Rev. Wolfmueller have just as much of a lexical range for “family” as I have posited for “race.”
Your children, mother and father, sisters and brothers and their offspring, are your “family.”
Your aunts and uncles, first and second cousins, and their offspring, are your “family.”
Your far distant relatives who live all over the country and whom you have not seen since that one big reunion years ago, are your “family.”
If you are traveling overseas and meet someone with your surname who traces their bloodline back to the same village as yours eight generations ago, you exclaim that “we might be family!”
Wolfmueller, whom you agree with, is fond of the phrase “Noah family reunion,” which he uses to denote the fact that we are a “family” with all men across the globe!
And would you deny that we, along with all men who have ever lived, are together part of the “family” of Adam? Of course you wouldn’t!
So you see? Your lexical range for “family” matches the lexical range for “race.” As I argued in my opening statement, we typically reserve the word “family” for more proximate relations, whereas the word “race” typically encompasses a broader swath of consanguinity, but that is largely conventional. As I remarked to Rev. Wolfmueller during cross-examination, there is a German word which encompasses the same lexical workings as both of these: Geschlecht.
I won’t engage with the rest of the points you attempt to raise regarding Mahler’s views on miscegenation—that is beyond the scope of the current debate, after all. However, I will copy what was posted in November 2024 on the Old Lutherans X account and let that be the last word on that subject for this response.
“Mixed race” is reasonable shorthand for when the progeny is the result of their parents coming from groups which do not trace to a common ancestor (or founding stock pool of ancestors) between them to more recent than, say, the Genesis Table of Nations.
Consequently, such progeny will be a mix of the allele constellations of both races, being of both but matching neither. This begins the process of ethnogenesis, by which a new genetic constellation is formed, which can be normed over subsequent generations.
This is an amoral process, as taking a spouse of another race is neither commanded nor forbidden by the Lord. There are questions of wisdom as pertains the bigger picture, and how doing so impacts the community and the progeny themselves, which are necessarily particular.
One such question of wisdom is how such progeny will be received by the community. Will they face stigma, as mixed race people often do? How might that bear on the right-ness of producing them?
However, this question is not more or less pressing than whether the child will face a heightened risk of metabolic disease by virtue of having parents which are too consanguineous, as Jewish and Amish couples are facing in our time for lack of outbreeding.
But here’s the rub today: it seems evident that in our time of globalism the managerial elites (as we are currently referring to the Satanic cabal, I guess) are very interested in ethnically cleansing the world of the White race through ethnogenesis via aggressive outbreeding.
We are right to oppose this initiative, to fight to preserve our people and its cultures, without the churchmen slandering us as hellbound “racists”, which they are devilishly intent on doing.
This is one of the battlegrounds that is raging hot right now. Clarity of vision on this is in short supply, and emotionally triggered women of both sexes are in full meltdown mode. We need a more measured approach and to reason together.
Moving toward the end of your comments, I accept your acquiescence that “Ruth by biology was of Moabite ‘race’.” You have truly spoken, and that should settle the debate, as far as the debate question for the Race Debate is concerned.
However, you continue,
… but by the declaration of the Word, she was Israelite; the Word here was spoken concerning her marriage (the Lord’s Word: the two become one flesh), and this was recognized by her redeemer, Boaz, who also had faith in the Word.
Clarification: Ruth was adopted as an Israelite, she was not physically transmuted into a flesh-and-blood descendant of Abraham through Jacob, but remained a flesh-and-blood descendant of Lot through Moab. Boaz knew this—he was still calling her “the Moabite” in the final chapter of the book of Ruth! I spoke further on this matter of adoption in my rebuttal of the Race Debate.
You finish with this load of bollocks:
At the end of the day, when considering my neighbor, Cosplay Linnaeus wants to have me looking at my neighbor—i.e., my neighbor’s address on Earth (Europe or Africa, etc.) and my neighbor’s skin color compared to mine—and not have me look at the One who justifies my neighbor (behold the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world”).
Have you ever sent a letter in the mail to someone in which you preached Christ crucified? Of course you have, Pastor. Then you know that it’s possible to hold your neighbor’s address in your mind concurrently with the fact that Jesus died for them. The same is true for their skin color, or any other racial fact.
“Linnaeus wants to have me looking at my neighbor…and not have me look at the One who justifies my neighbor…” You’ve spent a career preaching Christ while looking out at the faces of your neighbors, knowing the particular struggles each one was facing, their idiosyncrasies, and their heritage, and using that information to minister to the particular struggles of each of the members of your flock. And the line (read: lie) that you’ve chosen to take is that I can’t walk and chew gum—that is, know my neighbor’s racial heritage and all it entails, and that Jesus died for them—at the same time?
This take is so entirely intellectually bankrupt and devoid of self-awareness, I would posit that you can’t be serious, but I know that you are.
And, of course, you conclude with your variant of the same tired line that I dealt with in my response to the Christian News editor: “Here the modernistic doctrine of race theory has replaced the doctrine of justification.”
Therefore, I will answer as I told him:
Here is what I find most concerning about the way you lot approach this disagreement about the existence of the category of race. You all frame it as if the recognition of the existence of the Chinaman, the Bantu, the Lakota, and the Dane as distinct people groups, each with a distinct heritage and genetic composition, which we term “race,” is an attack on the Doctrine of Justification itself. You are the very churchly incarnation of the Law of the Instrument. You see something you don’t like, deem it a problem, and then flaunt your domain-dependency while you flourish Maslow’s hammer as if you were on a personal mission from Bo Giertz.
Sir, not everything that displeases you by poking at the malformed sections of your conscience is a Gospel issue. Race is real, and we don’t make Christians by denying it. In fact, we scandalize the men with eyes and brains who can smell a desperate lie a mile away.
We who acknowledge race and a duty to our people are increasing. You are decreasing. You can believe me while we sow, in time to save your own fields, or you can believe me when we harvest, when it is too late.
Finally, I understand that you delivered a paper on your position to the Rocky Mountain District convention this year. Drop me a line when that paper is published; I may find time to comment on it.