In The Compelling Community, Jamie Dunlop writes that “as an urban [white] American of the professional class, I have more in common with my working class, rural, Sudanese brother in Christ than with my own non-Christian blood brother.” He wrote those words in 2015, and I’m afraid that many American evangelicals in 2017 believe that statement to be heresy. Except, Dunlop’s sentiment squares perfectly with King Jesus’ blunt claim that “by this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). As disciples of Jesus, we are called to set aside our differences, including political, cultural, and ethnic differences, and love one another for the sake of the gospel.
Dunlop is right; Christians in American have far more in common with fellow Christians in Iran or China or even Canada than we do with the non-Christian American who sports the same political bumper stickers as we do. Our words and actions should reflect that reality. Sadly, however, proving that the increasing bifurcation of America has infected the evangelical church, the terms “cucked Christianity” and “uncucked Christianity” are now a thing and have been pitted against each other.
If you’re curious what “uncucked Christianity” is, or for that matter, what “cucked Christianity” is, this long quote from an alt-right site is only a quick peek into that weird, ideologically dark rabbit hole:
Within the West, we’re witnessing the division between Cucked Christianity vs Uncucked Christianity. Cucked Christianity largely entails white beta males, and some females, constantly virtue signaling about the need for Third World immigration, transracial adoption, etc. Cucked Christianity, as you can imagine, contains mostly whiney, girly men. Representative of this trend would be Pope Francis and … Russell Moore. Uncucked Christianity, however, entails Christianity at peace with reality, such as human biodiversity (HBD), ethnocentrism, and the ability for nations to repel the Third World immigration invasions.
(If you’re interested in exploring the “uncucked Christianity” rabbit hole further, click here, here, and here.)
I want to pull on the ideological strings of the word “ethnocentrism” as well as the denigration of transracial adoption in the above-quoted paragraph. Ethnocentrism is antithetical to the gospel because it defines and separates people solely based on their cultural and national identities. The problem with ethnocentrism is that God’s Kingdom is made up of those from all tribes, tongues, and ethnicities. To deny otherwise is to deny the Bible itself (Revelation 5:9-10).
In other words, a Christianity “at peace with … ethnocentrism” is not a form of Christianity that has any meaningful alignment with the Bible, nor is it a Christianity that Jesus would recognize.
As a subset of identity politics, ethnocentrism is a form of racism that is hiding behind a five-dollar word (albeit, not hiding that well, but hiding, nonetheless). At least, maybe (that’s a big “maybe”), using the word demonstrates a tinge of conviction, hence the need to doll the sin of racism up in multiple syllables. However, being opposed to transracial adoption is so blatantly racist and blatantly anti-Christian as to make the confession of it by professing Christians befuddling.
One of the primary motifs of the New Testament is the adoption into God’s family of those who put their faith in Jesus. Romans 8:15 says that we “have received the Spirit of adoption as sons.” Galatians 4:5 reveals that Jesus came to earth “to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” In one final verse, and there are many more that I could quote, the Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 1:5 that God, “predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.”
As mentioned earlier, the family of God is made up of people from all tongues and tribes. In other words, God the Father is the originator of transracial adoption. How in the world could a Christian be opposed to something from which they have claimed to benefit?
Of course, the sad reality is that those who embrace the label “uncucked Christianity,” or even those who express sympathy or solidarity with the movement’s tenets, are not concerned about articulating a biblically informed worldview, either in word or deed. They are concerned with protecting what they’ve got in the here and now, because their ethnic identity, measure of comfort, and material security are their true gods. In the false religion of “uncucked Christianity,” their version of the American Dream trumps the Bible’s call for Christians to surrender their rights for the sake of the Gospel and join in loving solidarity with brothers and sisters in Christ from all tribes, tongues, and nationalities.
Trading the Great Commission for a culturally and ethnically defined version of the American Dream means that “uncucked Christians” do not countenance any disagreement in reference to politics—a priority that King Jesus never mentioned. He did, however, as quoted above, put a very high priority on his followers demonstrating love for one another. As a follower of King Jesus, my true family transcends national and ethnic boundaries. I have far more in common with the subsistence farmer in Honduras who is a Christian than I do with my politically conservative neighbor who is not a Christian. “Uncucked Christianity” denies that and, as such, is anathema to biblical Christianity.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member