The Boomocracy of the Clergy Wants You to Know That Racism Will Send You To Hell

Linnaeus here.

On this eve of St. MLK Jr. Day, let’s review the anti-racist resolution that Rev. Warren Graff (and Bryan Wolfmueller) put forward to the 2025 Rocky Mountain District of the LCMS convention (it passed 145 to 14). The same one, in fact, that occasioned OldLuth’s debate challenge to Wolfmueller.

I’ll take it paragraph by paragraph.

Whereas, The Apostle Peter speaks of the Church as “a chosen generation” (1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen generation [γένος], a royal priesthood, a holy nation …” [NKJV, 1979; cf. KJV 1611]); and

We agree that this is a quote from 1st Peter.

Whereas, several modern translations speak of the Church not as a “chosen generation” but as “a chosen race” (1 Peter 2:9: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation …” [ESV, 2001; NASB, 1995]); and

We agree that there are translations which use this terminology.

Whereas, the Apostle Peter is using the language of the Prophet Isaiah, where Isaiah gives the promise of “my chosen people [LXX, τὸ γένος μου τὸ ἐκλεκτόν; MT, עַמִּ‍י בְחִירִ‍י]” (Is. 43:20), such that with this word Isaiah is referring not to racial categories as used in modernism (“modernism” in the sense of post-enlightenment ideology) to speak of several races divided from one another, but rather speaks of the chosen people of God;

We agree that Peter was using the language of Isaiah. However, Graff actually undermines Peter’s argument (along with other passages of Scripture) by claiming that Isaiah has no racial category in mind.

Peter, in calling Christians God’s people, is actually making an analogy to Israel’s selection by God as a racial group.

To get a sense for that, let’s look at the other texts that Peter is alluding to in addition to Isaiah—who was in fact also alluding to these texts. Note the insistence of God that He was choosing a particular racial (family) group out of all of the nations (other families) of the world—which assumes, contra Graff, “several races divided from one another“.

Now in the third month of the departure of the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt on this day they came into the wilderness of Sina. And they departed from Raphidin and came into the wilderness of Sina, and Israel camped there opposite the mountain. And Moyses went onto the mountain of God, and God called him from the mountain, saying, “This is what you shall say to the house of Iakob and report to the sons of Israel: You yourselves have seen what I have done to the Egyptians, and I took you up as though on eagles’ wings, and I brought you to myself. And now if by paying attention you listen to my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be for me a people special above all nations. For all the earth is mine. And you shall be for me a royal priesthood and a holy nation. These words you shall say to the sons of Israel.”

Ex 19:1-6, NETS Bible (emphasis mine)

For you are a people holy to the Lord your God, and the Lord your God has chosen you to be for him an exceptional people, more than all the nations on the face of the earth. It was not because you are more numerous than all nations that the Lord chose you and picked you—for you are very few in comparison with all the nations. Rather, because the Lord loved you, and since he was keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, the Lord brought you out with a strong hand and with a high arm and redeemed you from a house of slavery, from the hand of Pharao king of Egypt.

Deut 7:6-8, NETS Bible (emphasis mine)

Note how it was specifically the promises that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that culminated in His choosing their fleshly descendants, the Israelites, to be His own nation. God could not have taken the Egyptians to Canaan and declared them to be the fulfillment of these promises, for the precise reason that the Egyptians were not the descendants—not of-the-race-of—the men to whom the promises were made, but were another race altogether.

Another reason this adoption of Israel has to be understood in the fleshly sense, and not merely the spiritual, is that it was done precisely for the purpose of bringing the Christ into the world in the flesh. Christ had to be of the physical race of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because according to His promises and prophesies God had decreed that it was so.

Hence, according to Peter’s analogy, whereas the Israelites were God’s chosen fleshly race who would deliver the Christ to the world, believers are God’s chosen spiritual race who will be delivered by Christ from the world.

This is why Peter could go on: “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people.” Which is to say: once we were not bound together with select (ahem, elect) others from all times and places, but now God has forged those from every fleshly nation, tribe, people, and tongue together into a new, spiritual nation, or race.

Without the category of race according to the flesh, none of the foregoing can make sense, because Scripture is constantly reasoning from the fleshly (that which we see and know with our senses) to the spiritual (that which is invisible and apprehended by faith). If it were not so, why did Christ tell such mundane parables?

Whereas, the Greek word γένος is used to translate the Hebrew word עַם (e.g., Is. 43:20, et al) which references not “races” (in the modernistic sense) but “people,” and the Hebrew word זֶרַע, meaning “seed” or “lineage” (e.g., Jer. 29:32, et al), and to translate the Hebrew word גּוֹי (e.g., Jer. 31:36, et al), which, again, cannot mean “races” in the modernistic sense, but “nations”; and 

This is bafflegarble word salad. “Seed” and “lineage” pertains to descent of a particular stock. A group of humans who share a common lineage, being all of the seed of a common ancestor, is called a “race.” This is the inescapable semantics of the thing, as I proved conclusively in the Race Debate with Wolfmueller.

“Modernistic” is a scare word that Graff repeatedly employs to discredit the ancient habit of grouping men according to shared characteristics, which they come by due to shared ancestry. Or did Levantine herdsmen of ancient time not know of shared characteristics from common descent? Laban certainly evinced such understanding when he manipulated Jacob’s flocks all the way back in Genesis.

Whereas, the prophets use the language of “the people/my people” (or “lineage” or “generations”) to reference not “races” in the modernistic sense, so that the prophets are proclaiming that the chosen lineage includes all those brought into the Promise of the Christ—i.e., the lineage of Abraham (as also the lineage of the promise to Adam and Eve, Gen. 3:15 and of the promise to Noah, Gen. 9), with the people of promise including all those from many other families and tribes whom the Lord gathered into the lineage of Israel (e.g., the Ruth the Moabite, Rahab the Canaanite, et al); and

Ruth and Rahab are absorbed into Israel on account of their offspring, because both women married Israelites and their children and grandchildren married Israelites. Ruth, notably, is still called “the Moabite” in the final chapter of her eponymous book, because it was a title denoting her heritage—much like you might call Sven the son of Thor “Sven Thorsen” long after Thor is dead and Sven has moved away from his ancestral home. Ancestry is something durable that you carry with you; always has been. But I digress.

Graff begs the question here. In the Old Testament, “my people” was repeatedly and reliably used of the Israelite race, those descended from Jacob according to the flesh—as I demonstrated above. In fact, God’s repeated warnings to His people that he would scatter them for their disobedience make no sense if He was not speaking of a particular racial group. When God casts off “my [His] people,” He is not casting off all who believe (how would that even make sense?), but all who are physical descendants of the Hebrew patriarchs.

This is why Paul can equivocate between the flesh and the spirit and say that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” That is, not all who are of the physical race of Israel are of the spiritual race of Israel. Yet again, this Scriptural saying would make no sense without acknowledging that there is a category of physical, or fleshly, race.

The prophets and the apostles recognize both fleshly race and spiritual race, and use and interact with each category as befits the situation contextually. Graff prefers to acknowledge the latter only, and foreclose the former as “modernism.” This myopia rivals that of Eli the priest himself.

Whereas, the word “race” prior to modernism refers to the human race (singular), and not to “races” (plural)—where races are be set against each other, such that O.E.D. identifies the first usages of “races” in the modernistic sense (to denote not the human race descended from Adam and Eve, but several races divided from each other within the human race) to the mid-1700s and later; and

This is simply untrue. The Oxford English Dictionary (O.E.D.) lists several instances of “race” as referring to various familial tribes distinct from one another prior to the 18th Century. Here is a selection.

Slide with thy plumes, and tell the Troyan prince,
That now in Carthage loytreth, rechlesse
Of the towns graunted him by desteny:
Swift through the skies, see thow these words conuey.
His faire mother behight him not to vs
Such one to beme therefore twyse him saued
From Grekish arms: but such a one
As mete might seme great Italie to rule
Dreedfull in arms, charged with seigniorie,
Shewing in profe his worthy Teucrian race.
…
Armes vnto armes, and offpring of eche race
With mortal warr eche other may fordoe

Certain bokes of Virgiles Aeneis turned into English meter by the right honorable lorde, Henry Earle of Surrey, 1557, emphasis mine

Ther lacke no examples to verifie this. It was dryven in to the head of temperour C. Caligula, that he was subiecte to no power, that he was aboue all lawes, and that he might laufully doo what him lu sted. This lesson was so swete to the fleshe, that it was no soner moued than desired, no soner taught than learned, no soner hearde than practiced. First by like that thempire should not goo out of his owne race, he coupleth not with one, but with all his su∣sters, like bitche and dogge. He killeth his brother Tiberius, and all his chiefest frendes: he murdereth many of the Senatours of Rome. 

A shorte treatise of politike pouuer and of the true obedience which subiectes owe to kynges and other ciuile gouernours, with an exhortacion to all true naturall Englishe men, compyled by. D. I.P. B. R. VV., 1556, emphasis mine

[S]he stoutely answered: “Theagenes was my brother (said she) who beinge a valiaunt Captaine, and fightinge against you for the common safegard of the Greeks, was slaine at Chæronea, that we together might not sustaine, and proue the miseries, wherewith we be now oppressed: but I rather than to suffer violence vnworthy of our race and stocke, am in your maiestie’s presence brought ready to refuse no death: for better it were for mee to dye, than feele sutch another night, except thou commaunde the contrary.”
…
The Queene after she vnderstode by the bastarde’s letters the trouth of the mariage, sent for Rolandine, and in great rage, called her caitife and miserable wretche, in stede of cosin, reciting vnto her the disparagement of her noble house, and the villanie she had committed against the honorable race whereof she came, and against the will of her which was her Queene, kinswoman and maistres, by contracting mariage without the licence of the king and her.
…
Bvt now we haue beegon to treate of the stoutnesse of certayne noble Queenes, I wyll not let also to recite the Hystory of a lyke vnfearfull dame of Thessalian land, called Theoxena, of right noble Race, the Daughter of Herodicus Prynce of that Countrey in the tyme that Phillip the Sonne of Demetrius was kynge of Macedone, tolde also by Titus Liuius, as two of the former be.
…
And amonges diuers his cogitations, there came to his remembraunce the bounden dutie which he dyd owe to his Maister, and the goodes and honours which he had receyued at his handes, on the other syde, hee considered the honour of his house, the good life and chastitie of his syster, who (he knewe well) would neuer consent to that wickednesse, if by subtiltie shee were not surprised, or otherwyse forced, and that it were a thing very straunge and rare, that he should goe about to defame hymselfe and the whole stocke of his progenie. Wherefore hee concluded, that better it were for hym to die, than to commit a mischief so great vnto his sister, whiche was one of the honestest women in all Italie. And therewithall considered how he might deliuer his countrie from sutch a tyrant, which by force would blemishe and spot the whole race of his auncient stock and familie.

William Painter, The palace of pleasure beautified, 1566–1567, emphasis mine

The Englishe race overrunne and daily spoiled, seeing no punishment of malefactors did buy their owne peace, alied and fostred themselves with the Irishe, and the race so nourished in the bosome of the Irishe, perceiving their immunitie from law and punishmente degenerated, choosing rather to maintain themselves in the Irish mans beastly liberty, than to submit themselues and to liue there alone, and not the Irish in the godly awe of the lawes of England.

A letter sent by I.B. Gentleman vnto his very frende Mayster R.C. Esquire. 1572, emphasis mine.

…all of thair races clannis and names duelland within the boundis of the hielandis and bordouris.

Acts of Parliament of Scotland (1816)  vol. IV. 73/1, p73, 1594, emphasis mine

The word Mogoll, in their language is as much as to say, the great white king; for he is a white man and of the Race of the Tartares.

Captain Robert Coverte, A True and Almost Incredible Report of an Englishman, p39, 1612, emphasis mine

In this village scarce dwell any others, then Hunters, and Butchers; who flay the beasts that are killed. These are for the most part a mungrel sort of people of several Bloods. Some of which are born of white European people and Negros, and these are called Mulatos. Others are born of Indians, and white people; and such are termed Mesticos. But others are begotten of Negros, and Indians, and these also have their peculiar Name, being called Alcatraces. Besides which sorts of people, there be several other species, and races, both here and in other places of the West Indies. Of whom this account may be given, that the Spaniards love better the Negro Women, in those Western parts, or the tawny Indian Females, than their own white European race. When as peradventure, the Negros and Indians have greater inclinations to the white women; or those that come near them, the tawny, then their own.

translation of A. O. Exquemelin, Bucaniers Amer.  i. iii. p28, 1684, emphasis mine

As you can see, all but the final quote date prior to the publication of Descartes’ Discourse on the Method in 1637, which many consider to be the inauguration of the Enlightenment (Graff’s chosen bogeyman in his other writings on this subject).

Race has always been associated with lineages, which naturally diverge as family groups break off from one another. This clause of the resolution is a lie in both fact and in spirit.

Whereas, as those of the Church, the chosen generation/ γένος (1 Peter 2:9), we are given to proclaim not the words of modernistic ideology (such as doctrine of “races” often taught in our public schools and in much political rhetoric), but rather the words of the Prophets and Apostles which proclaim Jesus Christ crucified for all nations/ἔθνη; therefore be it

The phrasing “Jesus Christ crucified for all nations” accedes that there are distinct nations.

To the modernist like Graff, a nation is just a random aggregation of people in an arbitrarily defined economic zone.

In the pre-modernist fleshly sense (the sense in which I argue, contra Graff), a nation is a race, and a race is a nation. Members of foreign races can graft themselves into a nation—be adopted into it—but they are never so much part of it as they are attached to it (though their children are another question).

Resolved, that we reject modernism’s doctrine of several “races” by which the human race is divided into different typological categories, categories wholly unknown to the Prophets and Apostles; and be it further

The Prophets spoke of Israel as a fleshly race distinct from other fleshly races.

The Apostles praised God that men from any fleshly race—whether fleshly Israel or not—could be grafted into the spiritual race of Israel.

Lying about something, even when it passes by supermajority of votes from pastors, does not make it true.

Resolved, that we reject any teaching resulting from or based upon this modernistic category of race, including any teaching of race-supremacy, antisemitism, race division or segregation, or any other form of racism, and be it further

We must defend the doctrines of modernity at any cost, while claiming that we are fighting against modernity!

George Orwell was writing about the Lutheran pastor.

Resolved, that we recognize and affirm our Lord’s promise to the Church that we are a “chosen lineage” or “chosen generation” (1 Pet. 2:9), which is the lineage of all those called into the Promise, and be it further

Of course we are. And this is a spiritual lineage, running through Christ. This has no effect on our lineage according to the flesh, which runs through our fathers according to the flesh—whoever they may be.

If the Holy Spirit’s equivocal (read: analogous) use of these terms confuses most pastors, then one must conclude that most pastors are not apt to teach, and thus are not pastors at all, but impostors.

We are truly a people who must needs repent, that God has seen fit to scourge us with these feeble-minded men!

Resolved, that we rejoice that as the Church, the lineage of the promise, we are given to “proclaim the excellencies of him who called us out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9), a proclamation to be proclaimed to all nations (Matt. 28), and be it further 

There’s that “all nations” thing again. Do you suppose Christ meant “all economic zones, diversely organized as they are under differently colored pieces of pole-mounted-canvas”? Or did he mean all “people groups,” which is to say lineages, which is to say races?

Graff and his fellow Lutheran pastors cannot define “nation” without modernism.

Resolved, that we affirm that any who teach or promote (whether in public or in private, including all forms of social media) any form of racism, antisemitism, or race-supremacy or division, are to be denounced by the Church for this divisive teaching and called to repentance with the hope and the prayer that the Lord restores them to the Church, the chosen lineage of the promise, and be it finally

If you cannot define race or nation with any degree of coherence, how can I count on you to define racism, the big scary sin of the new order?

Ah, but you do not need to. The blinking cube in your living room for the last sixty years has done so for you, and will continue to do so until you close your eyes for the last time, wrapped in its reassuring embrace.

Resolved, that the Rocky Mountain District in convention memorialize the Synod to affirm that any who teach or promote (whether in public or in private, including all forms of social media) any form of racism, antisemitism, or race-supremacy or division, are to be denounced by the Church for this divisive teaching and called to repentance with the hope and the prayer that the Lord restores them to the Church, the chosen lineage of the promise.

I look forward to seeing whether the LCMS will adopt this hack job at a national level this summer.