Review of Christian Race Realism

Review of Christian Race Realism

Thomas Allen

Below is a review of Christian Race Realism (Sacra Press, 2025) by Michael Spangler. I found this book to be a disappointment primarily because of its weak Scriptural arguments. Yes, he shows that the human races are real and important. However, beyond that, he mostly agrees with the Christian racial nihilists. My review of this book is posted on Amazon. 

The Achilles heel of all race realists, whether they claim to be evolutionists or, especially, creationists, is monogenesis: All humans are descendants from the same set of parents, i.e., Adam and Eve or their evolutionary equivalent. Until they abandon monogenesis for polygenesis, which the Scriptures support, they are doomed to fail.

Spangler is a monogenist and an evolutionist who disguises himself as a creationist.  Although he shows that the human races are real, he claims that they change over time. Consequently, they are only temporarily real; eventually, they will transition into another race. That is, today’s Aryan (White) and Negro (Black) races will morph into a different race within a few centuries or so. Likewise, the other races will change into different races. Accordingly, human races are malleable, which conflicts with Jeremiah 13:23 (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). By claiming that today’s Negroes are descendants of Ham, who was an Aryan, he supports the mutability of the races, which is evolution. (To fit the typical biblical theory of the advocates of a young-earth and universal flood, like Spangler, Ham’s descendants have had to have evolved into Negroes within a few generations. If their theory is true, why have we not witnessed one race changing into another race during the last several millennia?) Thus, he is an evolutionist, although he asserts that he is a creationist.

One of the several errors that Spangler makes concerns Ruth. He claims that she was a Moabite by ethnicity. She was not. She was ethnically an Israelite who was born in Moab (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different ‘‘races” arise (from Noah’s family)?’” by Thomas Allen.).

Although he opposes interracial marriages, he does not consider miscegenation a sin (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Claiming that miscegenation is not a sin is another one of his errors. However, he does claim that using poor judgment is a sin, and marrying outside of one’s race is using poor judgment.

Review

Spangler argues that the various human races are real, hence race realism. The primary target of his argument is the Christian race nihilist (my term, not his). Christian race nihilists believe that human races are social constructs and, therefore, do not exist biologically, or that human races do exist but are irrelevant. 

Spangler supports his argument with Scripture, nature (physical attributes, language, culture, morality, religion, intelligence, and location), and history. He does a much better job of supporting his position with nature and history than with Scripture, which is pathetic. Nevertheless, he does show that the Scriptures treat the races as real and important.

Since Spangler’s arguments promoting race realism are directed primarily at Christian race nihilists, his Scriptural arguments should have been extremely strong, but, alas, they are weak and often agree with the Christian race nihilist. Like Christian race nihilists, Spangler is a creationist-evolutionist (to use an oxymoron), i.e., kind after different kind, like beget unlike. Also, like them, he is somewhat of a Lamarckian. One of his major problems is that he cannot free himself from the orthodoxy of all humans having a common ancestry. 

Additionally, Spangler discusses the confusion caused by the term “race.”  Among other things, it can mean all mankind, one of the major biological divisions of humans, an ethnicity, or a nationality. Thus, “race” is an almost useless term. At times, he seems to succumb to this confusion.

Spangler discusses interracial marriages in some depth, but he avoids the Scriptural condemnation of miscegenation. Instead, like Christian race nihilists, he does not consider miscegenation a sin. Nevertheless, he shows that God is a segregationist and is not an egalitarian.

Furthermore, Spangler gives an excellent explanation of the difference between civil rights and natural rights. Most civil rights granted in the last several decades have been detrimental to the common good.

Also, Spangler explains that discrimination and prejudice are not inherently sinful. He urges praising and protecting racial differences.

Spangler offers several recommendations. (1) Race realists should read books and articles on race. (2) Race realists should defend race realism; he provides advice about how to do it. (3) He calls for completely destroying the idol of egalitarianism and repenting of the notion that races are not real and unimportant, etc. (he provides a long list of things for which Blacks and Whites need to repent). (4) People should honor their extended family, i.e., their race (the fifth commandment). (5) People should not marry outside of their extended family. He explains why. (6) Children should be taught race realism, its importance, and the importance of segregation. (7) He offers advice on several political issues: immigration, crime, segregation, employment, suffrage, and self-defense. (8) Ministers and the church should teach race realism.

Although Spangler is a race realist, he seems to want to compromise with the Christian race nihilists. Unnecessarily, he concedes many points to them rather than rebuke them.

Nevertheless, Spangler is right about one thing: Race realists must be telling the truth. If they were not telling the truth, why do they cause race nihilists, especially Christian race nihilists, to go into hysterics? After all, race realists have no power or influence in the church or government.

In conclusion, Spangler does show that the various human races are real rather than social constructs. They are important in the eyes of God, and, therefore, should be important in the eyes of man. Unfortunately, he does a mediocre job of proving that Christian nihilists are incorrect Scripturally.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In “When State Resistance Meets the Constitution,” January 30, 2026, Benjamin Osborn (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/when-state-resistance-meets-the-constitution/) discusses the protest against federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Correctly, he argues that the protestors are acting unlawfully when they attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, neither the governor nor city officials have any legal authority to actively interfere with federal enforcement. All that they can do legally is to refuse to aid in that enforcement. However, his argument rests on Lincoln’s unhistorical concept of the Union, and a nationalist, rather than a federalist, perspective of the Union, where the federal government is all-powerful, and the States are impotent. This analysis discusses Osborn’s disdain for States’ rights and federalism and his admiration of federal tyranny.

Osborn rejects the notion that a State has the right, duty, and authority to nullify any federal act that it, i.e., “we the people” through their legislature or special convention, finds unconstitutional. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) If a State nullifies a federal act that it finds unconstitutional, that act is void in that State, i.e., does not exist in that State. Nullification is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, the way that the country was founded and the Constitution was ratified not only implies that nullification is lawful, but it also makes it a fundamental principle. Therefore, if any federal agent attempts to enforce a nullified act, he is violating the Constitution and his oath of office.

Before 1861, States could do what Vermont did to the federal fugitive slave law. Not only did Vermont nullify it, but its nullification also authorized the use of force to prevent the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. (See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.) If he were consistent, Osborne would oppose what Vermont did. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s War ended that option. Now, we have what is occurring in Minnesota. (See “Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants” by Thomas Allen.)

Osborn claims, “The Founders designed a system in which states retain meaningful sovereignty, but that does not include veto over federal execution.” For a State to have meaningful sovereignty, it must be sovereign. As a sovereign, it is and has to be the final judge of compliance with any contract that it voluntarily enters into, such as the US Constitution. Thus, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can be sovereign, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States" and by Thomas Allen).

Osborn cites the Supremacy Clause and argues that any law enacted by Congress and not vetoed by the US Supreme Court is constitutional. He is mistaken. The Supremacy Clause applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Only those laws are constitutional; all other federal laws are unconstitutional. Should the creators, the States, or the creature, the federal government, decide if a law is made pursuant to the Constitution? Osborne claims that the creature decides. (He is a true Lincolnian.)

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the specifically delegated powers of Congress were constitutional; all other laws enacted by Congress were unconstitutional.

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few instances where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. (See “Four Poisonous Clauses” by Thomas Allen.) Osborn supports this usurpation of the federal government.

If a State disagrees with a federal act, it “may litigate, protest, and seek political change.” Osborne’s solution of litigation means that he supports letting the federal government decide the limits of its power; that is what litigation means, as it will occur in federal courts.

(To use an analogy, if Osborn [a State] and I [the federal government] have a dispute, he should not object to my wife [the federal courts] deciding the dispute. One branch of my marriage would be as impartial in deciding a dispute involving another branch of my marriage as one part of the federal government is impartial in deciding a dispute with another part.)

Osborn cites James Madison’s explanation of interposition. He is correct: Governors lack the authority to nullify. However, proponents of nullification claim that “we the people” of each State, through their State legislatures, do have the authority to nullify federal laws that they find unconstitutional. (Being a nationalist at heart and desiring a strong federal government, Madison, unlike Jefferson, is not the best supporter of States’ rights and nullification. His approach to nullification lacks teeth and results in failure, as the Southern States proved in the 1950s and 1960s. [See “A Nullification That Failed” by Thomas Allen.])

Osborn writes, “The American system channels disagreement into courts, elections, and legislation.” Of course, he means federal courts and federal legislation. State courts and legislatures have only those powers that the federal government allows them. They certainly have no power or authority to interfere with the federal government, no matter how tyrannical, despotic, and unconstitutional it becomes.

Osborne is a strong proponent of making the States, which created the federal government, slaves of their creator. He implies that States have only those rights and privileges that the federal government concedes to give them. He is a strong proponent of federal supremacy and States’ subservience, which is tyranny and contrary to the very foundation of the Constitution — at least the Constitution of 1788, although not of the Lincoln Constitution, which is our current constitution. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?”) Based on this article, Osborn prefers America after Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment to America before them. (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

A primary reason that the country is in the turmoil that it is today is that no State has nullified any of the multitude (probably more than 85 percent) of the unconstitutional federal acts. Today, political power is centralized and concentrated in the federal government. States’ rightists’ political solution to America’s crisis is the decentralization and dispersal of political power, of which nullification is an important part.  (The major cause of America’s problems is moral decay.)

Personally, I believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce naturalization and immigration laws by arresting people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, although some of the tactics being used may not be legal or constitutional. However, the constitutionality is something that "we the people" of each State need to decide for themselves.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.