Linnaeus’ Open Letter to the Editor of Christian News

---

---

Dear sir,

I greatly appreciate your inclusion of the opening statements and rebuttals of my Race Debate with Rev. Bryan Wolfmueller in the June 9, 2025 edition of Christian News (Volume 63, Number 23). I hope you will also publish the cross-examinations and the concluding statements—once they are up—in a future publication as well.

You also included two additional pieces with the Race Debate in this issue: your editorial, and Rev. Warren Graff’s response to my arguments. These were filled with assertions ranging from the questionable to the outright false and, because it amuses me to do so, I am going to comment on them, separately. Below is your editorial, with my remarks following.

---

Christian News Editorial

Rev. Wolfmueller is a respected and well-known pastor in the LCMS, but his debate opponent is anonymous, which is curious, if not cowardly. “The brethren” signals this is a Christian debate. But the actual arguments for some hyper-concept of race do not follow Scripture, nor are based on it. The opposite position, taken by Wolfmueller is scripturally based.

The affirmative position (that race is significant) fails to highlight the theological implications behind this stance. It takes a vague definition of “race” as a nebulous continuum though, and affirms it as a biological reality. As a general description, it does work somewhat—less so in our society.

But why argue for something that fits a very customized definition? There must be a motive, but we are not shown the upside of this. And certainty (sic) not in theological terms. The use of the Old Testament Israel as a race, is not coherent, since religion—following the true God and His law—is inseparable from being part of the nation of Israel properly speaking. The real question is not answered: Why do these categories of natural order matter? Are they something valuable and divine in themselves (that we must respect), or a consequence of sin and division? There are not races in Christ, and the the Holy Spirit does not distinguish one from another in the Gospel. Linnaeus has not defined race clearly, but merely embraces the dubious concept without committing to hard facts that can be falsified.

This Linnaeus seems to get angry at the “Enlightenment ideology of Equality.” But isn’t the basic root of equality in God’s eyes Christian—that all are His image-bearers and restoration is in Christ? Sure, it can be taken too far in this world and outside of Christ, but what place does man-made “race” play in theology. There is no iron-clad definition of this term. The word “race,” despite being a loaded and variously-defined term, doesn’t matter to him, he says, but it is used none the less. The Gospel addresses all nations and all individuals, not collections of people.

They seem to be talking past one another, but there is obviously a real disagreement. There are peoples more and less closely related by human observation. There are observable characteristics more or less in common. But these are of the flesh—not the Spirit. Depending on the precise definition (and Linnaeus gives himself a mountain of room on this front) one can say there are races, and also that there are not fixed categories we can place each person one (sic). What do we say when we cannot categorize someone? Are we not all children of Adam and also of God in Christ? We, as sinners, are partial and make shallow judgments based on superficial things, even our own sinful assumptions.

So what is the point? Linnaues (sic) has an axe to grind—but what is it? In the end, he does not need Scripture to make his point (logic and this sinful world are enough it seems), and ultimately a pagan can make the same claims. While the debate is not that interesting, the conclusions one makes based on wrong assumptions, in light of our sin and and (sic) depravity, must limit the universality of the righteousness of Christ in the Holy Gospel. “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (Acts 10:34-35).

---

Linnaeus’ Response

You opine that my anonymity is “curious, if not cowardly.” What I find curious is that you call yourself a “Lutheran”—a name derived from a man who operated under the pseudonym “Knight George” when to be identified as the Martin Luther would have threatened his life. Your implied designation of the Reformer as a coward is noted.

Next, you claim that my arguments regarding race do not follow Scripture, nor are they based upon it. Excepting yourself, I think it is plain to anyone reading that this is untrue. And yet, this is irrelevant. Scripture has more to say on the category of race than it does about the North American landmass, yet you would obviously reject a denial of your address based upon the sort of hyper-strict Biblicism your position requires. Your inconsistency is noted.

Next, you object that “The affirmative position (that race is significant) fails to highlight the theological implications behind this stance.” You are simply confused about the nature of the debate itself. The thesis is, “There is only one race, the race of Adam,” and I take the negative position, not the affirmative as you say. The debate is not over whether race is significant, but whether it exists, and in what way.

Next, you object that the definition of race that I employ amounts to a continuum. That you would do so is unsurprising, as race-denialists routinely fall into the Continuum Fallacy when they argue their views.

Next, you state that “The use of the Old Testament Israel as a race, is not coherent, since religion—following the true God and His law—is inseparable from being part of the nation of Israel properly speaking.” It is true that all Israelites were charged with allegiance to God, but it is also true that devotees of other races were still called by their own racial epithets (Ruth the Moabite, Uriah the Hittite), marking them as racially distinct from ethnic Israelites.

Next, you opine that I have not answered why these categories of natural order matter. This is a very bizarre line of thought. Adam did not question God when the Lord brought animals before him to name, and we his descendants have never stopped working to understand the natural order of creation, giving names to concepts and categories as we go. As I said above, this debate is about whether race exists, not about why the concept matters. The latter question is a subjective assessment and not at all suitable for a debate such as this, and in any case it would necessitate that the sides agree on the former, which Wolfmueller and I do not.

Next, you defend the idea of equality as a Christian one, but you admit that it can be taken too far. Well, it has been, with disastrous results for ourselves and our children. But that doesn’t matter because you live in the gated community of abstract theology, where the Second and Third Articles exist without the First, and nothing more than a single degree removed from the Doctrine of Justification has any value.

Next, you say that “The Gospel addresses all nations and all individuals, not collections of people.” Come again? “The Gospel addresses all nations…not collections of people.” Nations are collections of people. As so often happens for your generation of the most propagandized men in history, you become incoherent in thought and speech in your rush to reject created categories that clash with your Civil Rights conditioning.

Next, you acknowledge that “There are peoples more and less closely related by human observation. There are observable characteristics more or less in common.” It is good that you are able and willing to recognize these facts of creation—First Article facts. Except you then go on to state, “But these are of the flesh—not the Spirit.” Pure gnosticism. Your daily need to sustain your physical life with physical bread is of the flesh. Your children were produced of a fleshly union. Your fleshy fingers typed your very words on a corporeal (non-spiritual) keyboard. You, in your gated ghetto of abstract theology, depend upon fleshly categories each and every moment. I have in this debate propounded on fleshly categories because that is what is relevant to this debate, but you want to deny that capacity to me because it is not suitable to your high-minded spiritual palate. Your arbitrariness is noted.

Next, you return to your Continuum Fallacy; the Sorites Paradox claims another victim.

Next, you state, “In the end, he does not need Scripture to make his point (logic and this sinful world are enough it seems), and ultimately a pagan can make the same claims.” Of course, I’ve cited Scripture throughout my arguments, but you must continue to hold the line of strict Biblicism in order to claim that it is irrelevant. In any case, the fact that a pagan can see something true about God’s created order that you must deny in order to keep your incoherent ideology together should concern you. There is a Christian revival happening among millennial and younger men, many of whom are attending church for the first time (often with families in tow), because there are sectors of the Church now acknowledging plain natural truths that men like yourself tell them they cannot believe. Truths which Christians have always acknowledged before your generation was taught not to. To put a spin on John 3:12: “If we lie to men about earthly things, how will they believe if we tell them of heavenly things?

Last, you imply that my conclusions about race “must limit the universality of the righteousness of Christ in the Holy Gospel.” And yet you published my rebuttal to Wolfmueller in which I plainly stated agreement with him that “Christ accomplished his redeeming work on behalf of all [mankind].” 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.