It has come to my attention that the US Presbytery of the Free Church of Scotland Continuing (FCC) has sent a communication regarding my excommunication on January 24th to my former RPCNA Presbytery—the Presbytery of the Alleghenies. There are two reasons why this communication is important.

First, I was intimately acquainted with this FCC Presbytery since March of 2021. At that time, I moved to the Auburn, Alabama area to be part of one of their new church plants. My intention from that time until the summer of 2025 was to transfer my ministerial credentials into their Presbytery. And, by 2021, my family had already transferred their church membership to their Alabama congregation. From a practical standpoint, these men were my Presbytery and this congregation was my congregation. I preached in their churches, listened to their counsel, and sought their mentorship. In turn, they knew me and my family well. Furthermore, we were a useful asset in their Alabama church plant.

Second, in this aforementioned communication, they express disapproval regarding my excommunication on January 24th. They express concern regarding three areas of my trial: substantive, pastoral and procedural.

(1) They express a substantive concern regarding the sentence of excommunication, as to its severity:

“…we found the severity of the censure in the pronouncement of Greater Excommunication without adequate warrant… While understanding objections to some of the content, we cannot see how his positions in those seven articles rise to the level of repudiating fundamental articles of the Christian faith, which if a person rejects places them beyond the pale of salvation and strips them of any credible profession of faith.”

(2) They express a pastoral concern, as to speed:

“…we consider the speed of the censure alarming, with the whole process carried out in a single day, and without first engaging in rigorous pastoral care and the application of a lesser censure before moving to the dreadful sentence of the Greater Excommunication. Our shared Reformed heritage would counsel against such haste.”

(3) They express a procedural concern, as to its lack of specificity and Scriptural references:

“…especially in light of the previous two points, we examined more carefully the content of the charges to ascertain the possible flow of thought in reaching your verdict. But regarding the content, we were perplexed by both the lack of specificity in the charges and the absence of Scriptural references to substantiate the charges.”

I am glad they mentioned that the charges of sin in my trial contained no reference to the Holy Bible. The absurdity of such a thing cannot be overemphasized.

In summary, the FCC Presbytery expressed a desire to honor the verdict but suggested that they “cannot approve” such a verdict on these grounds. I have more I could say about the letter, but for now, it needs to be known and is useful.

Here is a witness against the January 24^th trial and it comes at a pertinent time. My appeal is set for next week (June 16-19). Furthermore, the below letter contains a subtle request for it to be forwarded to Synod for their consideration. I hope that the Synod receives the letter as a communication. However, this letter is not currently part of the appeal’s formal documents and, it appears, that my former RPCNA Presbytery did not send it as part of the official documentation.

Read the letter for yourself. Below you will find it in text, and also redacted images of the official PDF file.

Proverbs 18:17, “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.”

The Communication

FREE PRESBYTERY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (CONTINUING)

Moderator: (name redacted)

Clerk: (name redacted)

March 18, 2026

Presbytery of the Alleghenies

Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America

Attn: Clerk, Rev. Drew Poplin

Esteemed Brethren:

Thank you for your communication from the Ad-Interim Commission of the Presbytery of the Alleghenies on February 9, 2026, detailing the facts and verdict of the trial of Mr. Sam Ketcham. We remain grateful to the Lord for our warm fraternal relations with the RPCNA, both through our joint-membership in ICRC and the close personal friendships we enjoy with many men in your body. We seek to pray regularly for the outpouring of the Lord’s blessing on your pursuits of Christ’s glory and kingdom.

We have interest on several fronts in the matters concerning Mr. Ketcham, ranging from our personal connections with his wife and children (as former members of one of our congregations) to the impact of the controversy over Kinism within Reformed churches more broadly. Our Presbytery has confronted through various means tenets maintained by some proponents of Kinism. We have sought to maintain throughout our body a clear and cogent adherence to the biblical and confessional doctrines involved in the current controversy. Furthermore, we desire, as the Lord gives us light and grace, to navigate the volatile atmosphere fomenting at present in a principled manner befitting the fear of God and the care of souls. We know that our reaction to controverted issues (beyond the issues themselves) can affect long term outcomes, either exacerbating matters or facilitating sound resolution. We feel certain that you share these same commitments. To that end, in the spirit of brotherly love and co-labor, and in pursuit of our common objectives concerning Christ’s interests, we offer for your consideration some reflections and concerns regarding the proceedings in Mr. Ketcham’s trial. We would desire for you to do the same for us in similar circumstances.

When we took up your communication at our recent April meeting of Presbytery, three disconcerting areas emerged in our reading of your materials, which we feel constrained to convey to you—and which we hope you may welcome as helpful. To be clear, a representative from our Presbytery was not present at the trial. Our information is confined to the documents and information that you sent to us, which largely seem to constitute the public record of the proceedings. We stand ready to be better informed by you on any misunderstandings that we may be entertaining on these matters.

First, we found the severity of the censure in the pronouncement of Greater Excommunication without adequate warrant. You seemed to base the degree of censure on the positions Mr. Ketcham advocated in the first seven articles he published online (not the total 14 articles he later released, nor the manner and behavior in which he conducted himself). While understanding objections to some of the content, we cannot see how his positions in those seven articles rise to the level of repudiating fundamental articles of the Christian faith, which if a person rejects places them beyond the pale of salvation and strips them of any credible profession of faith.

Second, we consider the speed of the censure alarming, with the whole process carried out in a single day, and without first engaging in rigorous pastoral care and the application of a lesser censure before moving to the dreadful sentence of the Greater Excommunication. Our shared Reformed heritage would counsel against such haste. The First Book of Discipline states that “the order of excommunication and proceeding to the same ought to be grave and slow.” The Scottish Form of Process of 1707 directs courts to lesser censure and repeated admonitions, thereby giving opportunity for repentance, while pursuing Greater Excommunication only after these means have been exhausted. This aligns with the writings of faithful men such as Samuel Rutherford and James Durham.

Third, especially in light of the previous two points, we examined more carefully the content of the charges to ascertain the possible flow of thought in reaching your verdict. But regarding the content, we were perplexed by both the lack of specificity in the charges and the absence of Scriptural references to substantiate the charges.

As members of one visible Church, under a common Head and King, we remain ardently committed to respecting the church government of other churches and to upholding the discipline of their courts. This deep-rooted conviction flows from Christ’s regulation of church government in the Scriptures. Consequently, our enumerated concerns cited above place us in a difficult position. On one hand, we wish to uphold the verdict of your Presbytery, which in this case would require deeming Mr. Ketcham as an unbeliever. On the other hand, we cannot approve of what seem to be missteps in the prosecution of his case, which leave us with grave concerns about the justness of the sentence. Consequently, the proper and principled remedy for this predicament necessitates an open and candid communication to your body, in a spirit of full disclosure and brotherly engagement. In all of this, we aim to pull together with you, not push apart from you.

We note Mr. Ketcham’s intention to appeal the decision of the POA to the Synod of the RPCNA in June. Please be assured of our earnest and ongoing prayers for your Presbytery and for the Synod as they take up this matter. We would be grateful if you would forward this letter to Synod along with your other documents. The Lord has bound us together with brotherly love in the bonds of the gospel. We, therefore, desire to share one another’s respective burdens.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of Presbytery,

(name redacted)

Principal Clerk to Presbytery

Free Presbytery of the United States of America1

The Communication – Images

I remember well how my family celebrated Christmas when I was young. All my siblings would sleep in their sleeping bags downstairs, and we would all rise together at the crack of dawn to open presents from our sweet parents. Before we were allowed to go upstairs and open our presents, we took a picture on the stairs in age order (I have 8 siblings). We then ran upstairs and preceded to open our gifts while our loving parents watched us and, no doubt, took pleasure in it all. We then spent the remainder of the day, traveling to both sides of my parent’s family, seeing grandparents and cousins, opening gifts, eating tasty foods, and fellowshipping with holiday “Christmas” cheer. Santa Claus never was a big deal for us. We kept Jesus as the reason for the season. The days and weeks leading up to December 25th, we held family worship at the dinner table and observed the advent calendar. We had the wreath, the candles, and devotional meditations on the nativity story. The highlight every year was when my father dressed up as a Shepherd and told us what he saw under the starry sky. When I was a pre-teen, I played Joseph in the Christmas play and my church always held a Christmas eve service, observed communion, and some really good vocalists always sang “O Holy Night”! The scene was always very majestic and awe-inspiring.

However, in 2014, as a young man with young kids, I put that all away. No more Christmas trees, no more Christmas gifts, no more “Merry Christmas!” greetings and special Christmas plays. We began to treat that day (and the days leading up to it) just like any other day. It is nice to be off from work and school and perhaps to see family, but it no longer is treated as a holy day in my home. It wasn’t because we were turned off by the pagan connections of Christmas, nor was it because I liked being the Grinch. It was due to a realization that Christmas was not pleasing to God and detrimental to our spiritual well-being. And it is my sincere desire to help God’s people realize the same now. It is not about winning a theological debate (although it is theological). As far as I know my own motives, I want to help God’s people grow in Christ. So please, read the rest of my letter with an open mind. It is written from a person who understands the emotional connections, the traditions, the smells, and the bells. It is written from a person who sees the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. It is written with the good of the Church and God’s glory in mind.

Why did Jesus not wash his hands according to the tradition of the elders (Mark 7:5-7)? After all, what is wrong with washing hands? Don’t we do that all the time? One may retort also, “What is wrong with having a tree in your house, lights on your house or giving gifts?” And I would respond, “Nothing is wrong with those things in themselves.” However, the reason why Jesus did not wash His hands according to the tradition of the elders was not only because it was a man-made tradition. Not all man-made tradition is wrong. The crux of the reason why Jesus did not observe hand washing according to the tradition of the elders was because, in addition to being a man-made tradition, it was also a religious ceremony. This rite was part of the ceremonial tradition of the Pharisees which was not required by God through Moses. It was a tradition of men but was presented as a commandment from God. Jesus was simply applying the second commandment to His life. In the same way, when someone adds the descriptor “Christmas” to something (Christmas lights, Christmas tree etc.), they now make something common to be religious.

But let’s go back to Jesus and the second commandment. What is wrong with a graven image (Exodus 20:4)? After all, the tabernacle and temple worship legislation of the Old Testament included all kinds of images and physical things used in worship, right? Certainly, golden man-made images were not wrong in themselves, were they? No. But the issue is when man decides he is going to make an image of their own devising for worship.

If you go through the pages of the Bible, this principle explains why God was so mad in Exodus 32 with the golden calf. They worshiped the true God (the God who brought them out of Egypt—it was a feast to the Lord), but according to their own way and not God’s command. This was the fundamental reason why Nadab and Abihu were destroyed (Leviticus 10:1-2), why Uzzah was struck dead (2 Samuel 6), and the main reason why Paul is so upset with the Corinthian church regarding the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11). This is what Paul condemns in Colossians 2:23 and he calls it “will worship”—worship that is according to the will of man and not God. Moses summarized a whole chapter on worship instruction by saying, “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

At the end of the day, God is not pleased that we set Him as our only object of worship (1st commandment), but we must also worship Him only according to His appointment (2nd Commandment). And He may appoint an act of worship by express command, or by good and necessary consequence.1 But this is the way of worship and it is called the “Regulative Principle of Worship.”2

Yes, my friend, we can sin even while we worship God. Worship is not just a matter of the heart; it is a matter of the form also. If we can dictate how we worship God, then we can control God. But he is a jealous God and has reserved that part of our human experience to his sole prerogative. Right now, I am wearing an orange sweatshirt and black sweatpants. I am sitting in a black chair and drinking a decaffeinated hot tea. None of these things are commanded in the Bible. But neither am I worshiping God through these means. Instead, I am speaking about the times when we approach God in worship. We must do it according to His express appointment.

It is hardly worth mentioning that the annual celebration of the birth of Christ is not in the Bible nor commanded by God. Sure, angels and kings celebrated the birth of Christ. But that was the actual birth of our Lord and not an annual holy day. The apostles never suggested nor commanded that the church honor Christ every year with a holy day commemorating His resurrection or His birth. It simply is not in the Bible. The Bible only speaks to a weekly holy day (Exodus 20:8; Leviticus 23:3; John 20:1,19,26; Revelation 1:10) wherein God’s people worship Him and commemorate and honor all His mighty deeds in creation, providence, and redemption. This is what God’s people are repeatedly exhorted to keep (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Corinthians 11:20, James 2:2), not an annual celebration of the birth of Christ. The incarnation is certainly an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. But if God wanted us to celebrate it every year, He would have told us.

No doubt this teaching has massive practical implications. It is my opinion that some sincere Christians stop considering these matters because of pressure from their parents, their kids, or even their spouse. But we must fear God more than man and—in our own station (according to the fifth commandment)—do all that we can to prohibit sin in our life. The cessation of Christmas will very likely stir up the family life and bring on many awkward conversations. But we must seek to please God first before man. We must be willing to suffer for righteousness sake (Matthew 5:10).

But beyond this, it also is for your own good. The weekly holy day is the only holy day that God has blessed (Exodus 20:11, Isaiah 58:14). This is the day wherein, by God’s Spirit, He comes down and blesses those who seek Him by faith in the worship ordinances which He has appointed. Christmas will always disappoint you and never satisfy, but the weekly holy day, by God’s grace, will bring spiritual food to your soul that will last. You want to grow in Christ? Keep the holy day He has appointed and see what happens to your soul.

So, my dear Christian friend, here is why I do not celebrate Christmas and why you also ought not to celebrate it. Please consider these words and may the Lord be gracious to us.

Sincerely your friend,
Rev. Samuel Ketcham

First published on Purely Presbyterian on December 23, 2023.

Dr. Jeff Stivason is a professor at the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh, PA. He is also the appointed spokesman of the Presbytery of the Alleghenies for my appeal this June at Synod. He has posted an article on the website of the denominational magazine (RP Witness) entitled, A Word to Kinists. He targets me specifically and since he has refused to remove the article upon my request, I am compelled to defend myself from his stupidity and slander. I will confine my thoughts under 4 headings.

1. Stupid Statements

First, he defines Kinism by citing non-Kinists like himself.

“What is Kinism? According to Drew Poplin’s very helpful 56-page book, The Canvas of Creation, it is “the belief that races should not intermix, but remain in their allotted boundaries set up by God” (Crown & Covenant, 2025).”

A less stupid technique is to quote a Kinist and especially the Kinist he is targeting in his article (me). In my trial, in which Stivason attended, I gave a basic definition for both Race Realism and Kinism. Perhaps he was not paying attention? I said:

“Race realism. All men are created in the image of God. Second, God in his providence has made races of men by the law of propagation. Genesis 10-11, Genesis 9:25-27 allows us to see at least three races of men, if you wanted to use that category. Third, racial difference is real. Skin tone is just one natural characteristic of the races… Kinism. Kinism is simply natural affection, 1 Timothy 5:9, ‘He [who] does not provide for his own, especially those of his own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.’ He says you’re worse than an infidel because even the infidels do this, it’s by nature. They love their own…”

He does the same thing in the following quote from his article:

“…why shouldn’t races intermarry? The Kinist offers Titus 1:12, ‘One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’”

What Kinist argues this way? In my article “Race and Marriage” I provide reasons against inter-racial marriage because it can potentially violate various biblical principles: (a) the Christian nation principle (b) the “extra-ordinary” principle (c) the “male headship” principle (d) the “leave and cleave” principle (e) and principles of “imprudence.”

I do provide the “unequally yoked” principle and this is the idea he addresses above in relation to Titus 1:12. But I list many other reasons. Additionally, regarding Titus 1:12 and the Cretans, if he wants to argue that all races are equal in natural capacities (to include virtue), then make an argument. But to not cite my writings or those of other Kinists is just stupid. I would expect more from a seminary professor.

Second, he conflates three ideas: Kinism, racial superiority and race realism.

“The underlying problem with Kinism, according to Poplin, if not obvious already, is racial superiority or what is being called Race Realism.”

These are three separate things and ought not to be conflated. Yes, they are related, but again I would expect more accuracy from a PhD type who teaches in a reformed seminary.

Third, he states things as obvious that are not obvious.

How is the below definition of Kinism obviously a problem?

“What is Kinism? …it is ‘the belief that races should not intermix, but remain in their allotted boundaries set up by God’ … The underlying problem with Kinism, according to Poplin, if not obvious already…”

Has he not read Acts 17:26? Is he not aware of basic human history? Races are, in large part still to this day, separated by geography and do not normally inter-marry. Please tell me what is so obviously wrong with the belief that, “…races should not intermix, but remain in their allotted boundaries set up by God”?

Another example. Stivason says:

“Samuel Ketcham illustrates this error in a Substack article titled “Race and Nature,” stating, ‘When the white man took the true religion around the world, the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual. But to deny that their superior culture, language, and race had anything to do with it—is foolish.’ In this statement, Mr. Ketcham has undermined the Reformed gospel. For example, he has obviously confused means and merit.”

How is it obvious that in my quotation I have confused “means and merit?” It is not so obvious. I speak of two means: (a) the Holy Spirit as the effectual means and (b) the natural capacities of White men as one of the instrumental means of gospel advancement. If he wants to twist my words and take them out of context—go ahead. But he is not fooling anybody, especially young White men who are realizing that they are being replaced in their own country and are forced to deal with the suicidal political decisions of their forefathers.

One reason why young White men are rejecting Stivason’s view and leaving the egalitarian party is that men like Stivason are no longer able to simply assert the common dogma of the day. They must support it. The egalitarian interpretations he thinks are obvious are not so obvious to the young White men who must face the ramifications of immigration, White replacement and social Marxism in the USA. Stivason cannot support his claims, thus young White men are coming to Kinist positions.

Fourth, he states a truth that is consistent with my Kinism.

He states that the gospel does not change certain natural characteristics. This is not stupid in itself, but contrary to how his egalitarian party normally speaks. “Brothers and sisters, the gospel may not make you able to jump higher or lift heavier weights…” He needs to think more about this statement.

What else does the gospel not directly impact? Certainly, a White Christian basketball player can apply self-discipline to his sport by the power of the Holy Spirit and begin to jump higher. But, it is not the work of the Holy Spirit to give what nature has not given and eventually his self-discipline will fall short to the Black basketball players who came from Africa and have great “jumping” genes.

If Stivason would consider the ramifications of his above quote and think deeply, perhaps he could make a good Kinist after all?

2. Erroneous Statements

First, he says that Kinists (and implies specifically me) believe that genetic characteristics are “unalterable” and “enduring.” Where have I described my view of immutability of the races in this way? In my article, Race and Immutability I describe my position:

“In this article, I argue for a specific type of racial immutability. But one clarification is helpful from the beginning. Under the locus of the doctrine of God, theologians are accustomed to speak of God’s immutability. Only God is immutable—absolutely speaking. … God is a perfect being and, therefore, cannot improve or diminish. He is absolutely immutable. But the races of men are not absolutely immutable. They are, instead, practically immutable.”

I then go on to describe more of what I mean and defend my position that the immutability of the races (natural characteristics like skin tone, physical abilities, intelligence, etc) are practically immutable. One thing I make clear, however, is that vices and morals fall directly under the work of the Holy Spirit in the gospel. I write:

“Although, I believe that races and ethnicities have unique moral dispositions, I would not consider them “practically” immutable. Thanks be to God that, by the Holy Spirit, those moral dispositions which are sinful can be changed more rapidly than the other natural characteristics. The soul and the body are the not the same.”

Second, he quotes me and makes not only a stupid but an erroneous statement about me:

“‘When the White man took the true religion around the world, the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual. But to deny that their superior culture, language, and race had anything to do with it—is foolish.’ In this statement, Mr. Ketcham has undermined the Reformed gospel.”

How does this statement undermine the Reformed gospel? He goes on to try and make a case for it and I will deal with those arguments. But at the face of it, Stivason has a tough hill to climb.

Third, he says, “But Ketcham’s statement goes beyond means and speaks of “superior culture, language, and race” as contributing causes.” It depends on what Stivason means by “causes.” If by that he denotes “means” then yes. If by “causes” he denotes “merit” I say no. There is no merit in the gospel except for the merit that Christ earned in His life, death and resurrection for His elect people.

Fourth, he says:

“The church is composed of a multitude drawn from every tribe, language, and nation—all of whom stand equally in need of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, the Kinist will readily affirm this point in word. He will say that the gospel is for all people without distinction. But this verbal concession collapses under the weight of his own system.”

I affirm that the church is composed of a multitude drawn from every tribe and nation. I say this explicitly in Race and Grace, which was part of the evidence given in my trial and something I clearly stated several times in my trial, “In heaven, God’s people will gather before the throne of God and they will be from all types of races and ethnicities.”1

Does my “verbal concession” collapse “under the weight of [my] own system?” No, it only falls under the weight of his explanation of my system. Stivason has created a house of cards so that he can flick his finger and knock it down.

3. Slanderous Statements

First, he says that part of the Kinist “heresy” is that they deny the following:

“They [Cretans] need a gospel and its accompanying admonitions so that their character might be conformed to Christ. Brothers and sisters, the gospel may not make you able to jump higher or lift heavier weights, but it can and will sanctify your character, conforming you to the image of Christ; and to believe differently is serious error. It’s part of the Kinist heresy.”

I affirm this statement, thus I cannot be part of this “Kinist heresy.”

Second, he says,

“Kinism, and by extension Race Realism, fails to understand something vital. Genetics are not the source of blessing. The gospel is the source of blessing. Samuel Ketcham illustrates this error in a Substack article titled ‘Race and Nature,’…”

I affirm that genetics are not the source of gospel blessings. Simply being White or being born in a Christian home does not give salvation. But why would he want to place genetic blessings and gospel blessings at odds? Good genetics are a blessing from God to be thankful for and used for God’s glory. Gospel blessings are a free gift. All glory goes to God for His salvation among any nation, race or in any one person. I might add that genetic blessings are also a gift of God and all glory to God for them!

Also, does he really want to say that “genetics are not the source of blessing?” I suppose it depends on what kind of blessing he is talking about. I would assume, since he has a PhD (and we all know that those with a PhD are brilliant!), he was gifted by God with good genetics. It takes some brains to be a PhD in Greek. Why is that not a blessing, Dr. Stivason? It does not begin to compare with the blessing of regeneration, but it is still something to be thankful for as given by God.

Third, he says:

“Second, Ketcham reintroduces grounds for boasting—not in Christ, but in one race’s superiority to that of another.”

How so? I specifically say that the White man is what he is by the grace of God. We have a greater responsibility and duty to be thankful but have no room for boasting (Jeremiah 9:23-24). You can see point 1 of my article Race and Grace wherein I say, “An individual person who possesses the strengths which are characteristic of his race has no ground for boasting.”

Fourth, he says,

“And third, to argue the gospel succeeded because of racial or cultural superiority implicitly denies that the gospel is equally at home in every culture...”

I am not sure what he means by “at home in every culture.” But the Scripture does teach that the gospel is, especially in the New Testament, equally for every people and culture and can transform any wicked heart. Furthermore, I explicitly say in his quotation of me that the Holy Spirit made the mission of the White man effectual. I state that it is foolish to deny that the natural gifts of the White man had nothing to do with their missionary efforts around the world. I did not say that the gospel succeeded simply because of the superior race of the White man.

Fifth, he says

“But why does it always come down to skin color for the Kinist? Why not eye color, birth hospital, or shoe size? Perhaps another question. Why does Kinism seem to fixate on Blacks and Jews? The likeliest answer is that Race Realism is really race hatred masquerading as love for those who are actually despised.”

Actually, we do not focus on skin color because we do not think that the issues of Race are only about skin color. Skin color is just one aspect of a person’s race. We do focus on eye color to some extent. Our own White people seem to be the only ones with green and blue eyes. But we do not focus on birth hospital, or shoe size because that makes no sense. Stivason needs to make an argument for why we should focus on these two things or how our system is logically faulty for not doing so.

Yes, we have things to say about Blacks and Jews and for good reason. In America, DEI policies have unjustly placed many unqualified Blacks into positions that should be held by better qualified people (normally Whites). Furthermore, Blacks are, generally speaking, given to violent crime which the statistics demonstrate. Jews are, in the main, likewise hostile toward Christianity. This is stated clearly in the Bible (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16) and has been the opinion of many respected reformed teachers in the past (Calvin, Luther, etc.). Luther wrote a tract called On the Jews and their Lies. He is ridiculed for it today, but I suggest that his basic position should become more popular. Furthermore, Jews have an enormously disproportionate position of power in American society (law, politics, medicine, education, etc) and yield that power for their anti-Christ agenda. I do not have time to prove that claim here. But Stivason, along with many other reformed leaders, need to wake up to the real threat of the Jews.

Sixth, he asserts that Race Realism is race hatred (see above quote). It is not hatred to state facts and to notice reality. It is not my problem that Stivason seems to live under a rock. I also find it enormously unjust for Stivason to impute such sins to me. This is also what the prosecutor did in my January 24th trial. Instead, show a video of me hating Blacks. That is the evidence you need to prove hatred. But when I write truthfully about a race and notice things that are unpopular in our society—it is not hatred.

Seventh, he said:

“For if, as Kinism maintains, certain races are marked by enduring genetic deficiencies—moral or cultural traits that the gospel does not fully overcome—then the universality of the gospel is not truly believed but merely stated.”

Where has a Kinist, or I, stated that the gospel does not “fully” overcome moral or cultural deficiencies? I have stated the opposite in my articles. In the below quote, I refute a similar claim made by Poplin in his booklet which serves to demonstrate Stivason’s slander.

“The power of God in the gospel sanctifies Blacks, as it sanctifies Cretans… The Kinists that I know do believe that ‘certain persons are prone to particular sins by virtue of their race’ as I demonstrated above from Titus 1:12-13. But to assert that “they simply cannot help it” is going too far. The unconverted “cannot help it” (Rom 8:8) because they are unconverted, but by the power of God, certain vices (peculiar to certain races) can be overcome by the power of the Spirit.”2

Furthermore, what does he mean when he says the gospel “fully” overcomes moral or cultural deficiencies? This will only occur “fully” in the resurrection. Thus, he needs to clarify what he means by the adverb “fully.”

Eighth, he says:

“In such a framework, the gospel may be offered to all, but it is not equally powerful for all. It becomes, in effect, a partial remedy—sufficient for some peoples but inherently limited in its transforming ability among others.”

Yes, but the framework Stivason has constructed is not the framework I have constructed. Thus, his slander continues and the many RPCNA members reading his article will think I truly am a heretic.3

Ninth, he says:

“This is not a small inconsistency. It strikes at the very heart of the gospel. The New Testament proclaims a Christ who breaks down dividing walls, who creates one new man in place of the old divisions, and who renews fallen sinners without regard to ethnicity or lineage. But Kinism reintroduces those very barriers under the guise of “nature,” suggesting that grace is bounded by blood.”

What dividing walls exactly does Christ, in the New Testament, break down? Yes, the people of God are from all nations and tribes and the “enmity” of the ceremonial “law of commandments contained in ordinances” is no longer binding (Ephesians 2:15). But there are still Jewish people and Gentile peoples/nations. So, what is he saying? Second, what “old divisions” does the “new man” replace? He is unclear. If he speaks about the church being from every nation, then yes. But if he is saying that that gospel mandates the amalgamation of the nations or removes ethnic differences, then no, as I have demonstrated in Race and Nation. Third, where has a Christian Kinist like myself suggested that “grace is bounded by blood?” If he refers to my exegesis of Genesis 9:25-27, then his problem is with God. God passed over a portion of Noah’s seed for a time, giving His saving blessing to Shem and his descendants (Israel). If he thinks that Kinists believe only Whites are saved, then he slanders me and ignores my public writings.

4. Matrimonial Statements

A big part of Stivason’s article deals with how Paul used Timothy to reach the Gentiles. This section of his article is less distasteful and it also is not directed specifically at me. But I will address his statements about Timothy’s mixed ancestry because I think it is useful overall.

Stivason says:

“Put another way, Paul and the brothers did not rebuke Timothy’s mother for spoiling the bloodlines or mixing the races. Timothy was recognized as a godly and useful brother. The church loved him.”

Stivason cites Timothy in support of inter-racial marriage as if all he needed to do was point out that Timothy was of a mixed ancestry. What should we make of this?

It would make sense that Paul would use a half-Jew and half-Gentile to help him reach the Gentiles for Timothy had some natural connection with them. Furthermore, the approval of Timothy’s mother’s choice of husband is not in the text. Instead, the text (Acts 16:1-3) suggests that there was a social stigma against such things, “…for they knew all that his father was a Greek.”

Consider this rationale. If Stivason’s suggestions about inter-racial marriage are correct, then why did all the Jews know that his father was a Greek? After all, the Kinists are wrong about inter-racial marriage, right? After all, inter-racial marriage is the Christian thing to do and should not draw attention, right? Instead, there must have been something about it that was odd or even frowned upon at that time.

Besides, Stivason is suggesting that all inter-racial marriage is equally suitable. It is one thing for Timothy’s mother to marry a Greek in her hometown that is culturally and otherwise equal with her. It is another thing for a White English woman to marry an African. Also, inter-racial marriage is not wrong per se. I have written a whole article on that matter and the issue behind Titus 1 is only one issue of many.

Consider a difference between Jews in Paul’s day and Whites today. Kinists like myself are concerned about inter-racial marriage in part because of White replacement. White people (especially White Women) are encouraged by our society (and the church) to inter-marry, immigrants are invading the lands of historic White nations, and White people are thus rapidly diminishing. That was not the case with the Jews in Paul’s day. So, what if White Kinists are concerned about inter-racial marriage? If they have a reason to be (and we do), then it is not automatically a problem.

Finally, Stivason is using something described in the Bible and making it a prescription. The logic goes like this, “Paul didn’t say anything about Timothy being mixed, so we must condone all inter-racial marriage.” It is sometimes difficult to know when something described in the narrative of Scripture is also prescribed for us to do. But I do not think Stivason makes a sufficient case. It is not clear from Timothy’s life and more analysis needs to be made—such as I have done in my article Race and Marriage.

Also, what is keeping Stivason from rejecting the following logic? In Acts 18:24-26, Apollos, a man “mighty in the Scriptures” was corrected by a married couple— Aquila and Priscilla. Clearly this means that a woman is warranted to correct men for their public teaching and teach them a better way, right? Now, perhaps in some cases, a woman is warranted to do so, but more needs to be said. Likewise, just because Timothy was of a mixed marriage and was godly and used by Paul for the ministry, does not automatically condone all inter-racial marriage. It does not even condone Timothy’s parents marriage. After all, only the faith of Timothy’s mother and grandmother is mentioned (2 Timothy 1:5). Maybe he died when Timothy was young or maybe he was an ungodly husband who left his wife after Timothy was born proving that the marriage was unwise. Either way, more needs to be said about the marriage of Timothy’s parents and inter-racial marriage generally.

Conclusion:

1. The people of God need to seriously question PhD types. They are fallible and err and Stivason has done so in a horrible fashion. He should be ashamed of himself not only for his stupid article but because of the poor timing of it. See my other article (Corruption in the Church) for how unjust his article is to the judicial process before my appeal is heard at Synod in June 2026.

2. I would like to invite Dr. Stivason to a debate on the issues of Kinism and Race Realism. If we can find a neutral moderator, I would be happy to do it over the internet for all to see and the recording to be posted to YouTube.

3. Members of Synod need to read these words of mine if they read Dr. Stivason’s words. In the end, the decision of my appeal in June is based solely on the record. But unfortunately, we know how the courts of the church really work.

2

Samuel’s Substack

Race and Heresy (8)

I had intended next to address specifically the question of immutability of race, but turn aside from that to address a more pressing issue…

Read more

7 months ago · 9 likes · Samuel Ketcham

3

I have written a separate Substack exposing the problems that Stivason’s article has in relation to my upcoming appeal June 16-19, 2026. It is located here:

Samuel’s Substack

Corruption in the Church

Introduction…

Read more

25 days ago · 3 likes · Samuel Ketcham

I was deposed and excommunicated by the Presbytery of the Alleghenies (POA), which is part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA), on January 24^th, 2026 for various alleged sins related to Race Realism. I have appealed this decision to the Synod of the RPCNA. I gave notice of this appeal on January 29^th and my appeal is set to be heard at the annual meeting of Synod, being held June 16-19^th in Indiana.

However, one of the members of my former Presbytery, Dr. Jeff Stivason, who is also the appointed representative of the POA for my appeal in June, wrote an article entitled, A Word to Kinists. In this article, he exhorts the RPCNA of the errors of Kinism (and Race Realism), mentions me by name, and specifically claims that I have departed from the “reformed gospel” and that I am part of the “Kinist heresy.” He also says many other things about my doctrine that are negative in nature and which are grossly slanderous.1

Scripture teaches rulers (both civil and ecclesiastical) to judge with just judgment. For example, Deuteronomy 16:18 says, “Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, throughout thy tribes: and they shall judge the people with just judgment.” In the history of jurisprudence, one common way in which a ruling can be unjust is by circularizing the court or, in layman’s terms, “poisoning the jury.” Circularizing the court is a procedural violation in judicial cases wherein a party attempts to influence the opinions or decisions of the jury through unofficial channels to influence the verdict. This is what Stivason’s article is doing. How so?

It is one thing for Stivason to publish, on his own blog, an opinion of my appeal before the court has heard it. This would be very imprudent, but not as serious. However, the big problem with Stivason’s article is that it was printed by the RPCNA’s denominational magazine (RP Witness) in the May/June 2026 issue. The RP Witness is not only public for all to see online, but it is also specifically disseminated in print to the members of the RPCNA including many of the commissioners to the 2026 Synod. These men will, in large measure, read this article and go to Synod thinking that I am a heretic because Stivason said so. It is further problematic when one realizes that Stivason is a professor at the RP Seminary, was a member of the judicial commission for my January 24^th trial, and is the POA representative for my Synod appeal this June. In other words, he is a “respected” member of the Synod and has influence. His opinion matters and he has clearly declared me to be a heretic. Why would a member of the RPCNA Synod want to overturn an appeal from a heretic?

The Case of Alex Murdaugh

Circularizing the court is a type of thing not even tolerated “among the Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 5:1). Consider one recent case. In March 2023, Alex Murdaugh was convicted of murdering his wife, Maggie, and son Paul, who were shot to death at the family’s Moselle estate in Colleton County in June 2021. He received two consecutive life sentences. On May 13, 2026, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously overturned the convictions and ordered a new trial. The key reason was improper external influence on the jury by Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill (not the judge).

What did Hill do? Hill allegedly told jurors “not to be fooled” by the evidence or arguments presented by Murdaugh’s attorneys.2 She instructed jurors to “watch him closely,” “look at his actions,” and “look at his movements” while Murdaugh testified.3 “They’re going to say things that will try to confuse you. Don’t let them confuse you or convince you or throw you off.”4 She said more but this will suffice to demonstrate my point.

Now it is granted that ecclesiastical courts do not necessarily take their cue from the civil courts of our land, especially given that civil courts today allow for so much wickedness. However, this point is very basic and stems from the Christian foundation of our land, which still has some remnants in our nation’s civil court system. Again, “And they shall judge the people with just judgment” (Deuteronomy 16:18). This type of thing is one way to render an unjust judgment. Instead, the jury must hear the records of the case and the arguments in a formal and proper way.

As much as I do not want to be associated with this evil man, it is actually helpful to my case to bring it up. Why? It seems that many in the RPCNA do really think I am a horrible person just as the public perceives Murdaugh. However, even “the Gentile” civil rulers recognize the impropriety of Hill’s actions in the Murdaugh case. It is a sad day when the civil leaders are more righteous than the leaders of the Lord’s house. And if poisoning the jury in Murdaugh’s case is unjust, how much more in my case wherein I am innocent?

My initial response to Stivason’s Article

Matthew 18 teaches us that if someone sins against us, we should to take it to that individual first and give him an opportunity to repent. V.15 says, “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” This is exactly what I did.

At my request, my Synod-appointed advisor (who is functioning somewhat like my lawyer in this situation and is a minister in the RPCNA) sent a letter to Dr. Stivason, the editor of the RP Witness magazine (Drew Gordon) and to the President of the E&P Board (Dr. Nathan Eshelman) which oversees the RP Witness. I will include his full letter and then summarize it below.

In the letter above, my Synod advisor essentially informed these three men (Stivason, Gordon and Eshelman) that this article was inappropriate on the grounds that it was unjust to write such an article while my appeal was being processed. We asked them to take down the article immediately from the website, and also state the reason for doing so, namely, that they did not want to influence deliberations.

The response we received from them was surprising to me. Within a few hours, the President of the board responded and stated that they would not grant our request and gave five reasons. I will include their response below and give my interpretation of their five reasons for denying my request.

Reason 1:

1. Your appeal to synod was submitted sometime in the morning hours of May 16th, after the article appeared online (and in print). The board and co-directors did not know of your appeal until this morning.

His first reason is truly astonishing. First, I cannot imagine that he and the board would not know about a judicial case going to Synod. I informed my Presbytery of my appeal on January 29th. Furthermore, I spoke on the phone with Dr. Eshelman about my trial on December 10th 2025. He certainly knew of the general situation.

Also very telling in this situation is that three of the members of the board are in my former Presbytery: Dr. Joel Ward, Rev. Matt Filbert, and Rev. Drew Poplin. Poplin was the prosecutor in the January 24 trial! All three of these men were present at my trial (to include Stivason). Furthermore, the editor of the RP Witness (Drew Gordon) is also in my former Presbytery, as is the departmental editor for the RP Seminary (Dr. Barry York). All it would take is for one of these men to act justly and say, “We should wait until after the appeal is heard to publish an opinion on it.”

Therefore, Dr. Eshelman’s first reason falls to the ground and does so in such a fashion as to show, at the very least, his and the other board member’s incompetence to know what they should know as leaders in the RPCNA. Did he really check with all the members of the Board? Did they all say “We did not know of his appeal until this morning?”

It becomes especially problematic when one realizes that Stivason, Filbert and Poplin were all present at the April 10-11 meeting of the POA wherein they appointed Stivason to be the Presbytery’s spokesman for my appeal and dealt with various matters related to it. The fact that I submitted my appeal by May 15^th and that it was uploaded to the documents on May 16^th is of little significance. I notified the POA of my coming appeal on January 29^th and they held a meeting about it in April. My situation is well known and public. A minister does not get excommunicated very often.

Did the board members really not know about it? Or are they simply incompetent? But again, even if they did not know about it until my email on May 16^th, what is the righteous thing to do? I did not ask them to go collect all the printed magazines printed and shipped out across the church. I asked them to take down the online article.

Reason 2:

2 . The RPCNA and Crown and Covenant has spoken on these issues previously, including the publication of Mr. Drew Poplin’s book, Canvas of Creation. This was not an attempt to single out Mr. Ketcham’s errors.

It is hard to understand exactly what Dr. Eshelman is trying to say, due to the fact that the last sentence is ambiguous because the demonstrative pronoun “this” stands alone.

I suppose it’s possible the letter is referring to the publication of Drew Poplin’s book. But the RPCNA and its publishing arm speaking on these issues through Poplin’s book has nothing to do directly with me nor my request, so it is difficult to make that connection.

Therefore, the most obvious conclusion would be that, by using the demonstrative pronoun “this,” Eshelman is referring to the Stivason article. But how could that be? How could Dr. Eshelman assert that the article does not single me out, when the only Kinist mentioned by name in Stivason’s article is me?

And it certainly appears that I have a starring role in playing the villain. Dr. Stivason writes “Mr. Ketcham has undermined the Reformed gospel”; that I have “confused means and merit”; that I have “reintroduce[d] grounds for boasting”; that I have implicitly denied that “the gospel is equally at home in every culture.” In the context of discussing my views, he writes: “Race Realism is really race hatred masquerading as love for those who are actually despised.”5

I suppose I should be grateful that I was not the target of this article. If I had been, who knows what else Dr. Stivason may have said about me?

Reason 3:

3. The article was a departmental feature of the RP Seminary, submitted by their departmental editor.

This point, of course, has nothing to do with our request, and is simply a stereotypical bureaucratic blowing of smoke. Perhaps the fault for Stivason’s article lies more on the editor (Drew Gordon) and the departmental head (Dr. Barry York). Perhaps Dr. Eshelman and the other board members are not as culpable for this mistake. But at this point, Eshelman and the board are aware of the problem and have a duty to do the right thing. Furthermore, in other aspects of our society (like business or the military), leaders like Eshelman would be held accountable for such a gross oversight. Should “the gentiles” act more righteously than the leaders of Christ’s church?

Reason 4:

4. It is not wise to remove articles due to a reader’s offense. You may write a letter to the editor in rebuttal (please keep it to 250 words per the RP Witness requirements).

First, it can be wise to remove articles if the offense is warranted. However, and most importantly, the reason for my request was not my offense or disagreement with Stivason’s substance, but with the judicial impropriety of publishing it before my appeal has been heard. I will be happy to submit a 250-word rebuttal to the RP Witness, but the damage has been done. The problem is not about my offense, but the violation of a basic rule in judicial process. Did Dr. Eshelman pay attention to the point of my letter? Does he have a pastoral heart to consider how he would feel if he was in my position? Is he acting according to the golden rule which says, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12)?

Reason 5:

5. Since, in the case of appeal, “The decision of the higher court must be based solely on the records of the lower court (BOD, II.4.15),” we trust that our elders are wise and godly enough to make a just decision based solely on the records.

Essentially, the point here is that elders are immune to “poison” and always act in a wise and godly way. But even “the Gentiles” stay away from such unjust procedures as “circularizing the court” (see Murdaugh case above). To assert that the elders judging my case at Synod will absolutely, positively not be influenced by Stivason’s article is naïve if not unrealistically optimistic.

One reason why the RPCNA Book of Discipline states that the decision must be based on the records of the lower court is because “circularizing the court” is something that could happen. I did not know that church elders are “maxed out” in their sanctification. Are Eshelman and the board really this blind and corrupt?

What can be done now?

One possibility is to conclude that the publication of this article in the official denominational magazine has so affected the members of the court, that they are no longer able to properly judge my appeal. In such a situation, it would be entirely proper that the verdict be set aside. Or perhaps it could be argued that the Synod should retry the case. The problem is there are no other qualified jury members to try my case (which is currently a question in the Murdaugh case). Therefore, I must use other means to remove Stivason’s article from the RP Witness website.

Now I ask for the help of my readers to influence the conscience of these RPCNA leaders. If my readers concur with my opinion on this matter, they can write respectfully to these men and ask them to take down the article and to issue an apology. Below is their publicly listed contact information (email, X Accounts, cell #s). Perhaps they will listen to the appeal of the general public.

• Dr. Nathan Eshelman (Board President): n.p.eshelman@gmail.com, @pastoreshelman, 323.356.57176

• Mr. Drew Gordon (Editor of RP Witness): drew@crownandcovenant.com,

• Dr. Barry York (Department editor): byork@rpts.edu, @barryjyork

• Dr. Jeff Stivason (author of article): jstivason@rpts.edu

Respectfully submitted,

Samuel Ketcham

Postscript:

Some will say that I have “circularized the court” when I published the full video of my trial and provided my own commentary on its errors.7 Let us consider this claim for a moment:

First, two wrongs do not make a right. I do not acknowledge that my YouTube videos are an example of “circularizing the court.” However, assume that I did. Why would Dr. Stivason want to follow the example of an excommunicated heretic? If he is so righteous, then it would be foolish and ungodly to follow the same sinful tactics of a “heretic.”

Second, the audience of my YouTube videos was different. If the members of Synod decide on their own accord to watch my posted YouTube videos on the trial—that is up to them. They have access to the unedited 7 hour recording in their 2026 Synod files. They are not required nor invited to watch my videos. I never emailed them or notified them. My videos were directed to the public. It is no different than if a member of the press had interviewed me and I had been given a chance to give my opinion on the matter before my appeal was heard.

This scenario is essentially what happened in the well-known case of the Presbyterian minister J. Gresham Machen. His opinion was published by the New York press during the proceedings of his case in the New Brunswick Presbytery in 1935. He was not circularizing the court but issuing a press release. My YouTube videos are of the same nature, but I do not have the New York press knocking on my door to do an interview, so I employed the services of YouTube.

However, the Stivason article, is published by the RPCNA’s denominational magazine and comes with its imprimatur (approval). Denominational officials and resources of the RPCNA are being used to affect the case before it is heard. The weight of the denomination apparatus is being brought to bear in this matter. And the message being conveyed by ecclesiastical employees to church members and officers is loud and clear: “Ketcham is a heretic and he must be hung.”

Finally, God’s people need to come to terms with the deep corruption in the church. For anyone who has watched my YouTube videos, you know that the purpose of those videos was to educate the people of God concerning the corruption of the church and this is one reason why I am writing this article. These men think that God is with them simply because they are in position, put an official letter head on their communications, and act “nice.” They are blind to their own blindness. God have mercy on them and on the people that they are over in the Lord. And may God give His people faithful shepherds that proclaim the Word of God and rule justly!

1

I have written another article addressing his claims here:

Samuel’s Substack

Responding to Stivason's Slander

Introduction…

Read more

25 days ago · Samuel Ketcham

Introduction

I appeal the decision of the Presbytery of the Alleghenies (POA) on January 24th, 2026 wherein the court found me guilty on all 4 counts (3rd, 5th, 6th and 9th commandments) of the charges of sin, deposed me from the office of elder, and excommunicated me from the church. I believe that the POA erred in this judgment. I appeal on four grounds which parallel the ones given in my notice of appeal and concur with the Book of Discipline (BOD):

“None but parties can appeal. They may appeal on the following grounds: irregularity in the proceedings; injustice or undue severity in the censure imposed; manifest prejudice or unfairness to the party on trial; admission of improper testimony or refusal to hear testimony that is important; or undue haste in reaching a decision before all the testimony has been heard.” - BOD II.4.10, E-17

However, before I give my four grounds of appeal (or “specification of error” see BOD II.4.14.g, E-18), I will speak to two reasons why some members of Synod will object to hearing my appeal. I anticipate that this arises before my appeal is officially presented on the floor of Synod. Technically speaking, the Synod does have a right to deny an appeal before it is formally heard on the floor. “For sufficient reasons the higher court may decline to act” (BOD II.4.1). Members of Synod could argue that they have sufficient reasons to decline to act for two reasons.

Reason 1: Contumacy

Members of Synod may object to receiving my appeal officially on the floor of Synod on the grounds that I am contumacious to the POA. These members will argue that I have continued to write public articles on my Substack regarding Kinism and Race Realism, have continued to preach and continued to function as an ordained minister of the gospel. I will provide three rebuttal arguments to this objection.

First, I am not contumacious to any lawful decision of the church of Christ. The past decision of the POA regarding my trial was manifestly unjust (which is something that I will demonstrate in the course of my appeal). I am therefore duty bound to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). This is especially the case given that the POA has not only deposed me from the office of an elder but has declared me an unbeliever and has cast me out of the church. To excommunicate a man who believes in the gospel of Jesus Christ and has an upright character is not only manifestly unjust but wicked in the eyes of God. To respect such a wicked act is neither biblical nor Protestant.

Second, the fact that I am following through with the appeal process means that I respect the Synod of the RPCNA and am not contumacious towards her. This Synod has a duty and the authority to overturn the unlawful decisions of her lower courts, and I am providing this Synod an opportunity to do so. I trust the Synod will vindicate the truth of God and the honor of Christ from the errors of the POA.

Third, I remind the members of Synod that they have already received a Synod judicial appeal in the case of a man that was perceived to be “contumacious” in the case regarding Jared Olivetti. Therefore, to overturn this appeal simply on the grounds that I appear to be contumacious is contrary to the precedence of this court.

Reason 2: Disagreement with my beliefs on race published since the trial.

Some members of Synod will object to hearing my appeal because of their extreme disagreement with other content about race that I have since published online after the trial in January. These members will argue something along the lines that I am clearly a heretic and have denied the gospel etc. based upon these writings.

However, I remind this court that, in the case of an appeal, “The decision of the higher court must be based solely on the records of the lower court” (BOD II.4.15, E-18). The evidence given by the prosecutor in the January trial only included: (a) my first seven online articles (b) Michael Spangler’s articles on the Pactum Institute website (c) various extracts from the minutes of Synod and (d) a general reference to the standards of the RPCNA (the Holy Bible and the constitution). My other online content regarding race is not part of the evidence. I have not had an opportunity to defend myself regarding such content and to answer the reasons why some members of this court may deem them to be heretical or contrary to the gospel. It is manifestly unjust, therefore, to judge this appeal on such a basis.

Having given these two preliminary thoughts regarding the propriety of my appeal to be formally heard on the floor of Synod, I now proceed to the four grounds (or specifications of error) in my appeal.

1. “Irregularity in the proceedings”

a. Violations of the rules governing judicial process.

Example One: Not disclosing what biblical texts were misinterpreted and/or misapplied.

At the beginning of the trial, I presented three objections to the court. Below is the first objection:

“Whereas the Book of Discipline (II.3.4) says, “The accused may offer objections to proceeding with the trial on the grounds that there have been gross irregularities…” and whereas the Book of Discipline (I.1.6) says, “Offenses which require discipline” are those that are “based upon the Scriptures” and whereas the prosecutor submitted charges of sin without any argumentation from Scripture or any citation of Scripture, I move that this trial be dismissed and the accused be given a summary dismissal with prejudice.”

The BOD may not specifically require “argumentation from Scripture or any citation of Scripture” to be in the charges of sin. However, this is simply implied since our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. Furthermore, this implied task is given credence by the wording used in the form provided in our constitution regarding an accusation of sin (Form 22, H-20). This exact form was followed by the judicial commission in my case. It reads:

“Whereas a Charge of Sin has been brought against you, a copy of which is attached: and Whereas the charge (or parts thereof) appear credible and therefore requires action by this court: and whereas according to the accusation attached there is a charge of serious sin, contrary to the Word of God…” – Accusation of Sin sent by clerk and moderator of the judicial commission (dated November 25, 2025).

The obvious implication of this wording is that the charges of sin will include Scripture. However, no such argumentation or even citation of Scripture were given in the charges presented to me by the prosecutor. This is especially problematic in my case wherein the fama clamosa clause was used based upon perceived heretical teaching. My case is not regarding adultery or child abuse etc, but involves public teaching. All the charges flow from perceived false doctrine which must be demonstrated from Scripture. But no Scripture was given.

Furthermore, consider the pastoral failure of sending charges without Scripture. Would any member of this Synod reading this appeal send to an erring member of their congregation charges of sin without any reference to Scripture? I hope not.

Finally, in the trial the following biblical texts factored into the prosecution’s oral arguments: Genesis 1:26-27, 9, 11; Joshua 9; Numbers 12; Proverbs 4:25-27; Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 3:31-35; Acts 10-12, 15, 17:26; Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 1:26-31; Galatians 3:28, 5:26; Colossians 3:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:4, 4:7; 2 Timothy 2:4, 3:7; James 3:13-18; and Revelation 2:2-5 — many of which did not appear in any of my articles submitted for evidence. In not being provided these things, I was disadvantaged from being able to engage with forethought into the biblical texts and arguments.

Furthermore, consider the following rationale. The judicial commission did approve the charges according to BOD II.2.2. But the prescribed procedure for the accused to challenge that action is at the start of the trial, at which time the accused may object to proceeding to trial (see BOD II.3.4). So, the moderator’s response “I will rule the objection out of order based upon the fact that these charges have been reviewed by the judicial commission and approved as valid charges to be heard in this body,” effectively deprived me of my constitutional right to make objections at their appropriate time and place (i.e. in the trial). This response of the moderator to my objection assumes that the judicial commission is infallible and could not err. He did not make an argument for why they charges were sufficiently reviewed, but simply asserted it.

Example Two: Not disclosing doctrine departed from and/or falsely maintained.

My second objection to the trial was:

“Whereas the Book of Discipline (II.3.4) says, “The accused may offer objections to proceeding with the trial on the grounds that there have been gross irregularities…” and whereas the Book of Discipline (I.1.6) says, “Offenses which require discipline” are those that are “described in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America” and whereas the prosecutor has submitted charges of sin regarding heresy, and whereas the other sins alleged in the charges depend logically upon this alleged heresy, and whereas the charges of sin never cite a single point of doctrine contained in substance in the Constitution of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, I move that this trial be dismissed and the accused be given a summary dismissal with prejudice.”

Likewise, the moderator denied this objection on the assertion that the judicial commission had already looked at the charges and approved them (again as if the judicial commission was infallible). The moderator did not provide a reason for why he deemed the charges were sufficiently written and the chairman of the judicial commission did not provide any rationale either.

Again, consider the following rationale. The judicial commission did approve the charges according to BOD II.2.2. But at the start of the trial, the accused may object to proceeding to trial (see BOD II.3.4). So, the moderator’s response “Once again, I will rule against your objection based upon the fact that the judicial commission has reviewed this and has found that they are in order,” effectively deprived me of my constitutional right to make objections at their appropriate time and place (i.e., in the trial).

b. Violations of the rules regarding witnesses.

The prosecutor provided new evidence or testimony multiple times throughout all four counts of the trial. As such, he functioned, not only as a prosecutor, but also as a witness. His function as a witness was admitted by him after I objected to him bringing up new evidence in his opening arguments. The moderator eventually upheld my objection. However, during this interchange, the prosecutor revealed his mind regarding his function as a witness. He said, “…essentially I am a witness in this case as a prosecutor.” Then, at the beginning of Count 1, the moderator called the prosecutor to the podium and acknowledged and approved this claim saying, “You have no witnesses to call outside of yourself.” The prosecutor, functioning as a witness, was the mechanism for the admittance of improper testimony throughout the trial. Because this testimony or evidence was new to me, I did not have the proper time to prepare my defense. Furthermore, the prosecutor was never sworn in as a witness, he was not listed as a witness, nor was I given an opportunity to cross examine him as guaranteed by the BOD II.2.7. Furthermore, the prosecutor, functioning as a witness, was the mechanism for the admittance of new evidence throughout the trial none of which was admitted according to the rules of evidence in II.2.1 and 3.9. This procedure is totally improper.

c. Violations of the rules regarding evidence.

When I saw that the charges of sin did not contain any reference to the Scriptures nor to the “system of doctrine” in the Constitution, I did suspect that new evidence and testimony would be brought up during the trial, for which I did not have the required 10 days to prepare a defense (see BOD II.2.3). Therefore, at the beginning of the trial I gave a third objection.

“Whereas the Book of Discipline (II.2.1) says that the charges issued by the prosecution, “… shall name the specific offense…. and provide… all papers to be offered in evidence” and whereas the Book of Discipline (II.2.3) says, “… both parties shall have sufficient time for preparation. At least ten days shall pass between the issuing of the accusation and the date of the trial...” and whereas the issuing of the accusation of sin assumes that the prosecution has submitted charges according to the Book of Discipline, and whereas the prosecutor issued charges that merely cite the larger catechism and portions of the evidence without any biblical evidence or argumentation, and whereas it is clearly the intention in the proposed timeline given by the judicial commission for the prosecutor to reveal his biblical evidence regarding the charges count by count, I move that this trial be postponed until the prosecutor submits all of his biblical evidence to be used in this trial to the party accused and a period of at least 10 days elapses.”

This objection was denied by the moderator. I challenged it and the court ruled in favor of the moderator. But the moderator gave no reason for his denial but only asserted that the judicial commission had reviewed the charges and found them sufficient (as if the commission was infallible). Instead, it is not lawful or orderly for the prosecutor to write and the judicial commission to approve charges of sin that have no reference to the Scriptures nor the “system of doctrine” in the RPCNA constitution. How am I supposed to prepare a defense in such cases?

Imagine if someone was charged with violating the 7th commandment but was presented no evidence. How would that person be able to defend himself? In a heresy trial, the evidence must come from the Bible. How am I supposed to know how to defend myself if I do not know the biblical and theological arguments levied against me for why I am a heretic or violated my vows? In the absence of such vital information how is the court ensuring me every opportunity to defend my good name as required in BOD II.2.7?

I remind the Synod that for the prosecution’s use of evidence, the BOD requires the following:

“In order to institute a formal judicial process, the accuser or the special prosecutor shall sign and submit a charge in writing. It shall name the specific offense, the time, place and circumstances of its commission. It shall also provide a list of the witnesses and of all papers to be offered in evidence” - (BOD II.2.1).

“At least ten days shall pass between the issuing of the accusation and the date of the trial, except by consent of all concerned. If additional witnesses or new evidence are discovered, the accused shall be informed and further time given him or her to prepare a defense” - (BOD II.2.3).

“After all the original testimony has been heard, rebuttal testimony may be introduced by either party; but no new evidence shall be admitted except by permission of the court and when the accused has been furnished with the names of witnesses and the purport of the evidence.” - (BOD II.3.5).

“After all the evidence has been presented, closing statements shall be heard. The accused shall be heard first and then the prosecutor, but neither shall go beyond the record or introduce new matter. The court shall then decide whether either party shall be further heard” - (BOD II.3.11).

In addition, the POA Judicial Commission stipulated:

“We discussed the rules and standards of evidence and what evidence we would receive as legitimate at the trial. As required by our Constitution, the prosecution must stipulate all their evidence in their submission of charges to the court of jurisdiction” (Minutes of the POA Judicial Commission, Dec. 20, 2025).

But the court did allow the introduction of improper evidence. These six examples are not exhaustive, but representative. I remind the court again, before one looks at my six examples, that the evidence given by the prosecutor only included: (1) my first seven articles (2) all of Mr. Michael Spangler’s online articles on the Pactum Institute (3) Excerpts from minutes of past RPCNA Synods and (4) the Holy Bible, the WCF and RPT, and the WLC and WSC (see “Charges of Sin”). No other “evidence” was given by the prosecutor.

Example One: Undisclosed External Evidence Used to Define “Race Realism”

The prosecution made use of and quoted Jared Taylor to inform the court’s understanding of “race realism,” the teaching for which I was being prosecuted.

“Jared Taylor is the one who coined and popularized the term race realism. He runs the white nationalist cohort American Renaissance. And he wrote in July 2008 that race realism has no theory of religion.”

“My comment about Jared Taylor, my point is in bringing up Taylor, ideas never just come out of nowhere. There is an actual history to this ideology, particularly in modern day America and among young men, young white men in particular. Jared Taylor is the coiner, the popularizer of the term race realist, and he is an advocate of eugenics.”

“All of this stuff has a background. It comes from somewhere. It didn’t just fall out. Oh, look, now all these reformed guys on Twitter are super sociologists. They’re all parroting the same language that comes back to guys like Sailer, that comes back to guys like Jared Taylor, that goes back to guys like Thomas Achord in the reform world and Stephen Wolfe. All these guys. And it’s a common language that is built around this idea of white supremacy.”

“The likes of which were supported by Margaret Sanger, Charles Darwin, Adolf Hitler, or Jared Taylor, the coiner of the term race realism, who’s a promoter of eugenics, and says that this is an atheistic thing.”

However, the Prosecution never disclosed this material in the list of evidence thereby disadvantaging me who, in the trial, said that I had “never read anything from Jared Taylor.” This is in violation of BOD II.2.1 and II.2.3.

Example Two: Introduction of Undisclosed Historical Scholarship

The prosecution made use of and quoted Marvin Vincent regarding the history of Christian emperors to demonstrate historical proof to rebut anticipated theological claims about slavery and hierarchy.

“When you look at the history of the Christian emperors, from A.D. 312, and this is Vincent, Marvin Vincent, recording this as a church historian. He says, “In A.D. 312, a law was passed,” this is a quote from Vincent, “declaring as homicide the poisoning or branding of slaves and giving them to be torn by beasts. The advance of a healthier sentiment may seen may be seen by comparing the law of Augustus, which forbade a master to emancipate more than one-fifth of his slaves, and which fixed 100 males as a maximum for one time, and the unlimited permission to emancipate conceded by Constantine. Each new ruler enacted some measure which facilitated emancipation. Every obstacle was thrown up by law in the way of separating families. Under Justinian, who reigned from 527 to 565, all presumptions were in favor of liberty.”

However, the prosecution never disclosed this material in the list of evidence disadvantaging me from being able to interact with the historical claims. This is in violation of BOD II.2.1 and II.2.3.

Example Three: Introduction of Undisclosed Empirical Claims

The prosecution made use of IQ Statistics and Post-2006 studies as a factual rebuttal to my claims.

“Furthermore, there has been a narrowing of the white-black gap in IQ scores. There’s a continuing phenomenon so that between 1970 and 2000, the gap between whites and blacks in America have decreased by approximately 7 to 10 points. And this has continued, in fact, since 2006, studies have been showing that blacks continue to increase in the IQ test while whites remain stagnant, so that it continues to narrow the gap.

“This means, in other words, that Murray’s research is not as clear-cut as Mr. Ketcham would like it to be. The whole point of a graph is, look, here’s this pretty picture, doesn’t this prove my point? but it’s not as clear as that. Furthermore, there is a non-universal focus of the IQ test. The IQ test, if you were to take one, focuses on things which may be good in our culture, abstract reasoning, visual memory, verbal reasoning, but would not necessarily be practical in other cultures. such as ones that are auditory rather than visual, or whose environment depends on different skill sets.”

However, the prosecution never disclosed this material in the list of evidence and thereby disadvantaged me by giving me no opportunity to review, test, or rebut these studies. This is in violation of BOD II.2.1 and II.2.3.

Example Four: Undisclosed Compilation of “30 Black Inventors”

The prosecution indicated that he had a list of 30 black inventors and inventions used to contradict my factual claims. This was intended as affirmative counter-evidence.

“So I do have a list. It’s not exhaustive. I can provide it to the accused if you want. I do have a list of 30 black inventors and their inventions. They range from the domestic, the biscuit cutter, to the practical, the automatic gear shift, to the societal, traffic signals, to the medical, since that was pointed out, pacemakers, to the military. And since Mr. Ketcham mentioned submarines, note the torpedo discharge mechanism for submarines was invented by a black woman.”

However, the prosecution never disclosed this material in the list of evidence thereby disadvantaging me in having opportunity to prepare. This is in violation of BOD II.2.1 and II.2.3.

Example Five: Undisclosed Political References

The prosecution cited several political references—including the Charlie Kirk assassination, Chinese Exclusion Act, Steve Sailer and VDARE, Thomas Achord, and Tucker Carlson. These references were used to situate my writings within a broader ideological movement. However, the prosecution never disclosed this material in the list of evidence disadvantaging me in having the opportunity to prepare. This is in violation of BOD II.2.1 and II.2.3.

Example Six: Undisclosed Biblical Commentator and/or Theological Citations

The prosecution cited several biblical commentators to support particular interpretations of Scripture, and or make claims that were intended to be counter-assertions to my claims:

“But by artificially creating different hierarchies of humanity, Mr. Ketcham is rejecting the image of God. As Samuel Rutherford says, ’It is the nature of no man to be born a king, and no man to be born a subject.’ Ambrose, ‘No man is born by nature in slavery. Sin introduces it.’ So to make hierarchy is to change, to import a new meaning into the nature of the image of God.”

“What are some historical support for this interpretation? First, I would deal with Calvin. Calvin does, in his commentary on Genesis 9, note that this is not enlarging Japheth, but enticing Japheth. And he posits that it’s about the conversion of the Gentiles. So there may be some dispute between us about Calvin. But this is the interpretation given by Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 139. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 5. Origen, Against Celsus, Book 7, Chapter 7. Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 14. Augustine, The City of God, Chapter 1. Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew 2-2. Gregory the Great, Epistles, Book 11 to Theochrysta, Patrician. Calvin on his commentary on Genesis 9, Matthew Henry on his commentary on Genesis 9, John Gill on his commentary on Genesis 9, as well as the Geneva Bible 1561.”

“I’m not on Facebook, but maybe by the same person Mr. Ketcham was alluding to earlier, Ghirlamo Zanchi, who is an Italian reformer. Patrick J. O’Banion, in writing an introduction to a work by Zanchi, says this. He’s an Italian reformer from 1516 to 1590. ‘The troubles came to a head in 1567 when a large contingent in Zanchi’s congregation stirred up by the assistant pastor, concluded to exclude all foreigners from election to church office. Zanchi called it an open schism and protested that qualified candidates could not be denied simply on the basis where they had been born. He refused to back down, and although Zurich, Geneva, and a local Synod endorsed his position, he lost his pulpit.’”

“About Tertullian, 160 to 220, he says, we’re all of one nature, all born of one God. What difference is there between the philosopher and the peasant, the Scythian and the Roman, but that of education and custom? It’s not about race, it’s about your culture. Augustine, in the city of God, Chapter 16, paragraph 8, says, All men, therefore, are of one nature and one origin, however great the difference of their bodily forms, color, or language. For all alike are descended from that one first man who is made from the dust.

“Gregory the Great, in his Moralia and Job 21.15, says, all men are equal by nature. It is only by sin that one is placed above another. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon on the Song of Songs, Sermon 25, he says, all men share the same condition of birth and death. Distinctions are born not of nature, but of pride. So if he says, well, the history of the church is against slavery, that’s not true. Or the history of the church is in favor of slavery, that’s not true. He says the church history is in favor of race realism. That’s also not true. Well, how about this? The RP church history is not precedent for the church Catholic. Well, if we want to go as far out from the RP church as possible, how about the Orthodox Synod of Constantinople in 1872? The Orthodox Church resolved this, we renounce, censure, and condemn philatelism, that is, racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatred, and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the gospel, and the holy canons of our blessed fathers, which support the holy church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine piety. Now, I’m not saying that’s obligatory, right? That is Eastern orthodoxy. But if he raises the objection of that’s just the RP church, it’s just not true.”

However, the prosecution never disclosed this material in the list of evidence thereby disadvantaging me in having the opportunity to prepare. This is in violation of BOD II.2.1 and II.2.3.

d. Violations of the rules regarding closing arguments

The prosecutor introduced new material in his closing argument which was neither listed in evidence nor previously used in the same manner. This is in violation of BOD II.2.1, II.2.3, II.3.11.

“The likes of which were supported by Margaret Sanger, Charles Darwin, Adolf Hitler, or Jared Taylor, the coiner of the term race realism, who’s a promoter of eugenics, and says that this is an atheistic thing. It has nothing to do with religion.”

“One of the church fathers, Boethius, tells a story in the Consolation of Philosophy where he meets Lady Wisdom. And he writes, the hands of rough men had torn her garment and snatched such morsels as they could from there. The idea is he sees Lady Wisdom’s garment, and there’s Greek letters around her garment, and certain letters have been torn off. He said these were from the hands of the rough men.”

The cumulative effect of the above material demonstrates that I was not tried solely on the list of evidence provided with the charges and/or duly authenticated by the court. The mechanism for this was the highly irregular function of the prosecutor as witness and the toleration of evidence submitted not in accord with the BOD’s rules of evidence. This deprived me of notice and opportunity to prepare rebuttal, and is in violation of the BOD’s procedural safeguards. Since I was not given a proper opportunity to defend myself, it was easier for the prosecutor to obtain from the court a guilty verdict on all 4 charges. I believe that the POA erred by allowing this irregularity and thereby admitting this improper testimony and evidence.

2. “Manifest prejudice to the party on trial”

I believe the POA erred in its decision due to a manifest prejudice (and unfairness) against me in the trial. I will demonstrate this prejudice with seven examples.

Example One: Refusing to allow me to depart peacefully

The prosecution said that I sinned against my superiors by not heeding to the lawful authority and counsel of bygone Synods. Even if it were true that I went against the “law and order of the church,” one of the means Synod provides to resolve such disagreements peacefully and in good order is departing from the church. This is from the 1981 report on Liberty of Conscience which Synod adopted:

“If the church as a whole and an individual disagree on what the Scripture teaches, both have a decision to make. The church must decide whether the view of the individual, which it believes to be in error, can be tolerated in the church without injury to the harmony and effective testimony of the church. The individual must decide whether his understanding of the Bible will allow him to remain part of a communion which holds a different view from his.” - Minutes of Synod 1981, pp. 127-128

I have been geographically out of bounds from the RPCNA since March of 2021. I have been attempting to formally transfer my membership and credentials since that time and have been in communication with the Credentials committee of the POA. I notified the Credentials committee of my desire to transfer to Piedmont Presbyterian Church and to start a new Presbytery with Rev. Michael Spangler before the November 2025 Presbytery meeting. But instead of transferring me and allowing me to leave in peace, the POA declared Piedmont a false church and instigated charges against me.

I purposely did not publish the more debatable material until I saw the recommendation of the credentials committee to Presbytery. The committee recommended (in the November 2025 POA meeting) that the POA counsel me for my sinful views of Kinism instead of recommending that I depart as I requested. Thus, they failed to allow me to leave peacefully. This is a partial and unfair treatment especially when one remembers that, historically, the RPCNA has let people depart for a wide variety of groups with all kinds of doctrine.

The below citations from the minutes of the POA’s November 2025 meeting help demonstrate my point. The recommendations come from the Credential’s committee report.

“Recommendation 4: That Presbytery refuse to interact with the letter from the Piedmont group. Rationale: Proverbs 26:4 says “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.” It is the position of your clerks that interacting further with this group will only legitimize their strife, sectarianism, and heresies. Recommendation 4 carried. M/S/C to receive communication F-2025-4. Communication F-2025-4 is appended to these minutes.” – November POA Minutes, p.13

“Recommendations 14-15 were presented to the Presbytery, regarding Rev. Sam Ketcham. Recommendation 14 was presented. M/S/C to lay on the table to entertain a substitute. The substitute is: That the Presbytery of the Alleghenies call Rev. Sam Ketcham to repentance from his sinful views on race and kinism. The substitute is before us. M/S/C to lay on the table to entertain a further substitute. The second substitute is: That the Presbytery of the Alleghenies appoint a special prosecutor on the grounds of fama clamosa regarding the public writings of Rev. Sam Ketcham on race and kinism. The second substitute is before the court. The second substitute carried. The Moderator appointed Drew Poplin as special prosecutor. Recommendation 15 carried. M/S/C that Moderator appoint a 5-man judicial commission to institute judicial process related to the case (c.f. BOD Section 2, Chapter 2). The presbytery rose in prayer for Rev. Ketcham, the special prosecutor, and the Presbytery.” – November POA Minutes, p.38.

Excerpt from a letter from the Piedmont Session (cited above as Communication F-2025-4):

“We have obtained a copy of the Committee report, with its recommendations. We are grieved to see that to the insult of not acknowledging the receipt of our two letters until asked a second time to do so, the Committee has added the scandal of denying the work of Jesus Christ in founding our church, and of expressing an intent to oppose Rev. Samuel Ketcham for his reasonable and biblical views on race, and for his desire to serve with us in the gospel ministry.” – p.115.

How can the POA affirm the opinion of the clerks when the Synod has not decided such matters with a position paper on Kinism? Again the minutes read, “It is the position of your clerks that interacting further with this group will only legitimize their strife, sectarianism, and heresies.” Furthermore, the ARP has just recently submitted a committee report outlining their views on Kinism and Race Realism. It is likely to be approved by the ARP Synod this summer. But the RPCNA has not performed such committee work. Nor is there any direct statement on Kinism in the RPCNA Constitution. Therefore, it was manifestly prejudice of the POA to take the opinion of their clerks and deny my transfer peacefully to another church.

Furthermore, the assertion that Piedmont Presbyterian Church is not a church is manifestly wrong. The constitution of Piedmont Presbyterian Church is online, and the Westminster Confession of Faith is her confession of faith. The church is larger than many of the smaller congregations of the RPCNA and has one ruling elder who held the office of elder in both the ARP and the OPC. The marks of the true church are certainly among her and it is manifestly partial to declare her otherwise even if one disagrees with her minister’s view of race.

Example Two: Proceeding to trial hastily

My Substack articles first appeared in October 2025. The Presbytery, without appointing a committee or commission to interact with me, or work with me and try to persuade me to repent of my views, or confirm my views immediately took action to proceed with charges (see POA Minutes November 2025).

Example Three: Calling for a security team for the January POA trial meeting.

The minutes of the 6th Judicial commission meeting on January 19th read:

“We discussed the possibility of having security present at the trial. It was moved that we hire a security guard to be on the premises for the duration of the trial for the purpose of added security. This motion was seconded, and carried.”

Furthermore, the original motion by the chairmen of the judicial commission on the floor of the January POA meeting was, “Mr. Moderator, that the trial proceeding be limited to members of the RPCNA and the security team.”

In hindsight, it is obvious that there was a “scare” for the physical safety of the court. My informed assumption is that, for whatever reason, I and my party of sympathizers were painted as a physical threat to the Presbytery. This implanted a very negative view of my character and those associated with me, as dangerous and unhinged, obviously worthy of excommunication.

Of course, the POA has the right to provide for their own physical safety. However, to imply that I (or my traveling party) was a threat is manifestly unjust and prejudicial to my character. I may have been an Infantry officer in the Army’s premier Ranger Regiment. I may have conducted special operations in the “Global War on Terror” in Iraq and Afghanistan. I may be a combat veteran. And I may be very proficient in personal firearms. But where have I encouraged unjust violence or demonstrated an unstable mind? This was manifest prejudice to my character and I judge that this was highly unnecessary and created a spirit of doubt and suspicion about me.

If the judicial commission and the leadership of the local church thought there may be a greater need for security than normal, they could have simply confirmed with some of the men that were going to be attending to make sure they were lawfully carrying weapons as is normal in our churches on sunday public worship. There was no need to make it a formal part of the trial wherein people entered the building and an informal roll was being taken at the door with unknown men armed and ready to defend the court. It created a spirit of suspicion and doubt and this, I believe, was prejudicial to my case—even if unintentional.

Example Four: Highly prejudicial historical associations

The prosecution grouped my writings with Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Charles Darwin, Jared Taylor, Antichrist, and eugenics.

“The likes of which were supported by Margaret Sanger, Charles Darwin, Adolf Hitler, or Jared Taylor, the coiner of the term race realism, who’s a promoter of eugenics, and says that this is an atheistic thing. It has nothing to do with religion.”

Such comments are inherently inflammatory, and I was not given notice that these would be introduced as part of the prosecution’s evidence. Furthermore, at the time of the trial, I had no recollection of Jared Taylor and certainly had never read anything from him. Therefore, such associations are prejudicial.

Example Five: Impugning internal motives

The prosecutor frequently impugned my motives for why I wrote my articles. He also claimed that I hated Black people without giving appropriate evidence to demonstrate the motives of my heart. This was a point I repeatedly brought up during the trial.

Furthermore, the moderator failed to distinguish adequately between objectionable rhetoric and constitutionally demonstrable hatred/malice, permitting disputed motives to be assumed rather than carefully proven. Thereby, the moderator demonstrated manifest unfairness by his actions in Count 3. This was raised several times during the trial by myself and by my witness Mr. Ben Holmes, but to no avail.

As one example of a common theme, the prosecutor said,

“The whole premises of his articles is to disunify us even further.”

“This is what it always comes down to. It is about dividing whites and blacks, and not just Europeans and Africans. It’s about black and white Americans fellow neighbors, and fellow countrymen.”

“Why would Mr. Ketcham exclude these? Are Africans not black? No, it’s because the point of his articles … it’s to foment prejudice against black Americans.”

The purpose of my articles is not “to foment prejudice against black Americans.” It is to help the church think biblically about contemporary issues of our day. I state this purpose at the beginning of my first article “Race and Racism”:

“American Christians need to come to terms with the fact that our country is in a race war. Many Christians utterly refuse to admit it, some ignore it, and some are yet still ignorant of its reality. Most Christians will simply reduce this conflict to spiritual matters. Yes, the gospel is fundamental to finding a peaceable solution, but this cannot justify truncating the whole issue simply to spiritual matters. But even if someone chooses to emphasize the spiritual element, there is still a great need to wake up to the reality that America is in a race war.”

The prosecutor is not God and does not know my heart, nor did he objectively demonstrate that I committed the sin of hatred or that I wrote to “foment prejudice against black Americans.” But the moderator did allow for such false statements to occur without objection. This was a manifest prejudice against me in both cases.

Example Six: Argumentation depended on inference and/or association

The writings of Rev. Michael Spangler were included in the evidence, although I never officially endorsed these writings or declared them infallible. The court was led to infer that all his thoughts were my thoughts simply because he is a known associate and someone I respect. Besides, even if I did endorse them publicly it does not follow that everything he wrote are my beliefs. As I mentioned in the trial:

“It is not for the defendant to know why the prosecutor included all of Michael Spangler’s articles in his evidence… But let it be known that Mr. Spangler is not on trial… to judge this case, based on knowledge of those things, is wrong.”

Consider the fact that the RPCNA would struggle to find two ministers who agree on every point of doctrine. However the implication here was that I am to be held completely liable for another man’s writings.

Example Seven: Precedential inequality

The prosecution cited many instances from RPCNA history in which Synod took a stance on racial matters (even with actual slave owners). However, there is no precedent for excommunicating a man for holding any of my beliefs. This ruling is truly precedential in church history.

In other words, count 2 alleges I, as an inferior to Synod, “did not follow in the ‘imitation of their virtues and grace; [nor gave] willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels.” The prosecution argued that my articles went against adopted statements of Synod, e.g. 1856, 1859, 1927, 1961, 1970. The prosecution’s argument rested on the assumption that stating public disagreement with the law and order of the church is censurable contrary to Synod 1972 which allows dissent and members of the court to declare their conscience not bound to a doctrinal stand of Synod.

In defense, I noted that the Synod has denounced Christmas observance, e.g. 1892, 1905, 1912, and 1925. By the prosecution’s logic and POA’s determination, those who observe Christmas are also not giving willing obedience to lawful commands. That, however, is not the precedence of the RPCNA. To my knowledge, there is no known discipline for someone who publicly disagrees with an action of Synod. Therefore, this precedential inequality demonstrates manifest prejudice against me.

3. “Injustice in the sentence imposed”

The POA unjustly censured me with deposition and excommunication because I am not guilty of any of the four counts. Because I am not guilty on all 4 counts, the censures imposed were unjust and need to be reversed. How so?

All of the counts of sin logically flow from the very first count. This was admitted by the prosecutor during the trial during count one, “What is the significance, though, of this charge? This is, of all four, from the prosecution’s view, the most significant charge, not only because logically it is foundational to the others, but...”

In other words, if I violated my vows, then I am guilty of the 5^th commandment and very likely have expressed hatred (6^th commandment) and have done otherwise sinful deeds (9^th commandment). But if I did not violate my vows (3^rd commandment), then it is highly probable that I did not dishonor my forefathers (5^th commandment), nor hate my neighbor (6^th commandment) nor otherwise sin (9^th commandment).

The prosecutor claimed I violated the following parts of the constitution: WCF 4.2, 26.1, RPT 4.3, 4.6, 26.4, and WLC 124. In the trial, I addressed all these points except for WLC 124 in reference to the 5^th commandment. I did not address WLC 124 because I did not know he was going to bring it up until he stated it in the trial and I failed to write it down fast enough. Therefore, I will briefly address WLC 124 here and leave my own defense in the trial for the other citations of the constitution. WLC 124 says:

“Q. 124. Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment? A. By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.”

The prosecutor then claimed the following:

“White supremacy, which again is supposedly an undisputed fact of human history, white supremacy creates a false category of superiority foreign to the scripture and the catechisms. As man is given in nature dominion over the creatures, not over man. But white supremacy says, no, nature is that man can even rule over man by his own nature. And it equivocates the term superior. So that when talking about blacks with regards to sports, Mr. Ketcham says, well, they’re superior as an adjective. But he would never give the same kind of superiority as a station when talking about them. Instead, he talks about whites with regard to history as superiors as a noun. This is an equivocation of confessional language, the language that we use to describe superiorities. It is a station given by God.”

First off, I never stated, nor do I believe, that, “White supremacy says,… that man can even rule over man by his own nature.” Neither can this be demonstrated from the writings for which I was censured. Second, this catechism implies that there may be other categories of superiority other than family, church or commonwealth by using the words, “…but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as…” The Larger Catechism is simply focusing on the three institutions that God has established (family, church and state). Otherwise, would the prosecutor say that WLC 124 does not apply to the private school? After all, the schoolhouse is not mentioned in WLC 124. What about the workplace? What about social clubs?

For the sake of brevity, I will limit my appeal on this specification to the record itself. I am not guilty on all 4 counts. I am innocent. Therefore, the censure imposed was unjust. I ask the Synod to reverse the excommunication and the deposition pronounced upon me by the POA.

4. “Undue severity in the censure imposed”

The POA and the Synod may believe that I am guilty of all 4 charges and that I am worthy of deposition. But it does not follow from my beliefs and actions that I should have been excommunicated. In this specification, my intention is for the Synod to reverse the excommunication. I give the following four reasons for why the censure of excommunication was unduly severe.

Reason One: The alleged offenses do not warrant excommunication.

A significant part of the prosecution’s argument rested on three allegations: 1) Departure from “system of doctrine,” 2) Misinterpreting Genesis 9:25-27 and 3) Departing from the law and order of the church in not giving willing obedience to the lawful commands and counsel of Synod.

First, with “system of doctrine” the prosecutor argued that my views are contrary to WCF 4.2, 26.1, RPT 4.3, 4.6, 26.4, and WLC 124. Although the court does have the right to determine what is or is not “system of doctrine,” this only materially affects the commitments of ordination, not membership. In such a situation, suspension from office/deposition is more appropriate, not excommunication. The essence of the visible church is a profession of true religion, not subscription to the RPCNA system of doctrine.

Second, the RPCNA does not, in its subordinate standards, demand a particular exegesis and/or conclusions of Gen. 9:25-27. And even if the Presbytery adopted the prosecutor’s interpretation of these passages, this is not a matter that would touch the commitments of membership but of office per query #8.

Third, the prosecution did state that the “law and order” does include “actions of Synod.” The prosecution made mention of adopted statements relative to slavery, immigration, and race relations (e.g. 1856, 1859, 1927, 1961, 1970). We do have an ordination commitment to “follow no divisive courses from the doctrine and order which the church has solemnly recognized and adopted“ (Query #9). But there’s room to argue about what constitutes a “divisive course,” and whether public disagreement rises to that level. I do not believe that I have followed a divisive course. I have not been disobedient to any of the commands or counsels of the church. DCG 8.18 says “it is the privilege of a member of Synod to dissent from an action to which he is opposed.” And Synod has also declared by special resolution that an ordained member can “declare his conscience not bound by the doctrinal stand of Synod“ (Minutes of Synod 1972, p. 72). The same “law and order” I am accused of violating permits my public dissent and protects my liberty of conscience. Hence, Dr. Frank Smith’s public dissent from the statement on race at last year’s Synod does not automatically make him eligible for charges.

But again, even if these three lines of rationale were sustained by Synod, they do not speak to the commitments of membership but to ordination. Therefore, excommunication is unduly severe.

Reason Two: No effort was made to bring the sinner to repentance prior to excommunication.

The POA failed to make all possible efforts for repentance. In imposing excommunication, the BOD mandates: “All possible efforts should first be made to bring the sinner to repentance“ (I.4.1.e). The following facts show that the POA did not fulfill this requirement:

First, the presbytery forewent calling me to repentance from my sinful views on race and Kinism and chose to appoint a special prosecutor on the grounds of fama clamosa (Minutes of POA Nov. 7-8, 2025, p. 38).

Second, prior to adjudication of the charges, I cannot be presumed guilty of the charges. The trial was necessary to render an ecclesiastical verdict about whether I was in fact in sin. Thus, all efforts to bring a sinner to repentance start after the trial that determines the individual to be in sin.

Third, I pleaded “not guilty” to all four charges, and this is a constitutional right, not a demonstration of obstinate impenitence (see BOD I.3.5 and II.3.5).

Fourth, the court must also place itself in my position and consider how genuine, informed repentance would occur. Consider the following questions. Where did a credible profession of faith cease to exist in my case? How much Kinism is too much Kinism? In other words, what am I supposed to repent of exactly to be considered a Christian again? The prosecutor had many opinions on the issues. Am I supposed to believe that the entire Presbytery feels the same about all the issues as the prosecutor? What exactly is it that I believe that makes me an unbeliever? In other words, what is the mildest form of my position that renders someone not a Christian?

The POA should have formed a committee of men to convey their rationale and reasons and specific repentance before dropping such a severe censure. As an excommunicated person that is supposed to repent, I am left wondering exactly what that means. After all, many Christians deny the reality of separate human races. However, that was something that the prosecutor seemed to affirm (along with me). Is it the belief that Blacks generally are not as intelligent as Whites? Is that a denial of the gospel? Is it that Ham and all his descendants were cursed by Noah? Is that a denial of the gospel? Is it that I believe that slavery in the South was fundamentally biblical? What was it that led Mr. Gregory to pray the following about me at the end of the trial after my censure was pronounced?

“And you would work by your Holy Spirit to shine your light in the mind and heart of Samuel Ketcham. He would see your truth pure and undefiled. And he would see the beautiful simplicity of the work of your Son. And you would liberate him from the empty and vain philosophies of this world. And he would rest upon this simple gospel of Jesus Christ. We pray that you would extend your hand to heal and restore and to save, and that you would be pleased in your mercy to grant him repentance.”

I thought this trial was about my views on race, not the “simple gospel.” Where did I depart from the simple gospel? The simple gospel is that if anyone (Black, White, rich, poor, male, female etc.) trusts in Christ as his savior, then God will forgive and adopt and save that individual forever only on the basis of Jesus Christ and not from anything that he has done. I might add that I have never disagreed with this and in fact, fully affirm the simple gospel alone for all races. This is my hope on the great day—that I would be found in Christ not having my own righteousness, not being found in my race, nor in my works, but only in Christ and His mediation.

Reason Three: I believe in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, my life does not contradict it, nor did the trial indicate otherwise.

The censure of excommunication ignored my profession of faith, my reputation among the church and community in which I have lived (since my geographical departure from the RPCNA in 2021), my orthodox preaching, and my statement on the gospel posted on my own Substack (see “A Gospel Tract” posted Sept 12, 2025).

Furthermore, during the trial I affirmed several points of orthodox Christianity to include that all men are created in the image of God, that all races of men are eligible and able to be saved, and that the gospel ought to go to all men. The egregious error of the POA is most seen by these facts. They excommunicated a man who professes the true religion and who has a respectable manner of life.

Below are a few quotes from me during the trial that are pertinent to adjudicating whether I understand the gospel.

“I deny evolution. See Race and Confusion … I wrote a lot about it and Dabney gives … really good reasons to refute Darwin.”

“I also elsewhere make very clear that the curse of Ham has not shut them out of the kingdom. There are more prophecies and more scripture that bring the Hamites [into] the possibility of salvation. Abraham’s promises that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed. And you can see “Race and Grace” where I talk about [that] the church is multiracial.”

“White supremacy. How is the prosecutor using the word white supremacy? I don’t use white supremacy that way. It’s interesting to note some of our forefathers speak on white supremacy as far as the substance goes. Philip Henry, Presbyterian minister and father of the famous commentator Matthew Henry… (etc)”

“…a quote about black intelligence, I acknowledge Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, that they’re intelligent. So it’s not like it’s just some blanket thing. And that’s the finding of Murray in his book that’s helpful. Some blacks are smarter than whites. That’s true to my experience.”

“Man-stealing is a sin because it is stealing.”

“I remind the court that I did not use crass language to speak about black intelligence. I did not use the N-word or something like that. I gave history, documented experience, and scientific analysis to back up my claim. If I’m wrong, okay, but why are we here talking about loving and blessing inferiors? The prosecutor does not have a monopoly on what that means.”

“Slavery is a positive good. Paul says, ‘I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ!’ Praise God for slavery! Jesus Christ is my master. He’s a good master. And masters who have had slaves on this earth and mistreated them have sinned. And masters who treated their slaves justly have not sinned.”

“’One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, low bellies. This witness is true.’ The prosecutor pivots to [it] being cultural. He [Paul] doesn’t say the ‘culture’ of the Cretans are always liars. He says—the Cretans. The prosecutor’s correct. Through the gospel, they would improve. I believe that. The gospel will change cultures. It doesn’t make one smarter. There’s a lot of smart unbelievers. There’s a lot of Christian white men who cannot jump. So yes, through the gospel, the Christian can improve. Hence, he says, ‘Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.’ And he talks about elders at some point… So I believe that. Praise God for that! That’s the gospel! We can repent by the power of Christ and his spirit, and our culture can be transformed to be obedient to God’s word.”

“We ought to share the gospel to all races.”

“Referring to a race war… Yes, the focus is the gospel. Fundamentally, our nation, the whole world, needs the gospel. That is the focus…. The solution is to preach Christ. I wholly agree with that. We need to preach Christ. We need to preach all that Christ has said—including the doctrine of race and nations.”

“What has brought us to this great white replacement? A lack of Christ, repentance. Very true, very true…”

“He [the Prosecutor] said, ‘What really matters is wisdom!’ 100%! I agree with that! Christ, the wisdom of God, and all of his doctrines—including the doctrine of race.”

“He says the point of the articles is to foment prejudice against black Americans. No! No! It is [about] the truth. And all that God reveals in his word. [It] is about the gospel. Oh! If there were large white families in Europe and America now like there was in the 1750s, and when Hudson Taylor lived, when John G. Paton lived, so we could send numbers, massive amounts of men to evangelize the Africans, to evangelize the Indians! Oh, if that was the case!”

“He said, this reveals what white supremacy is: vainglory, boasting and pride. Okay, so again, what does he mean by white supremacy? He means something I don’t mean. So if someone says that women are weaker vessels and males are dominant—they say that because of vainglory and boasting and pride? Why can’t they just be noticing?”

“The question is, ‘What is right about IQ?’ If whites are smarter, let’s use it. Let’s be thankful about it. It doesn’t mean—if we acknowledge that—that we’re boasting.”

“Race realism [is]: [First] All men are created in the image of God. Second, God in his providence has made races of men by the law of propagation. Genesis 10-11, Genesis 9-25-27 allows us to see at least three races of men, if you wanted to use that category. Third, racial difference is real. Skin tone is just one natural characteristic of the races. Intelligence, morals (Titus 1-12-13), Physical ability—there are other natural capacities we could list.”

“Kinism is simply natural affection. God has designed people to have more affection for their own people than others. The only people that are forbidden to do this are whites…. This does not deny the love all Christians have for Christians of different races. Patriotism or love for one’s own nation and Christianity are not at odds. The Order of Amoris, the Order of Loves, is a real thing. Galatians 3:28 teaches us gospel unity among all people. Yet those natural orders that he mentions in there still exist.”

“I’ve not violated the Sixth Commandment so far as this trial is concerned because the prosecution has no collaborating evidence—can’t see into my heart about hatred. And I confess before the Lord and before this court that I want to see, ‘The knowledge of the glory of the Lord cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.’ And I want to see black Southerners or black Americans have a better culture, have a more godly culture, more orthodox churches. In order to do that, I generally believe they need to know what their sin is. And it’s not loving to say, ‘Oh, you should be a doctor or a lawyer!’ When—apart from some rare cases—they’re not probably going to be well equipped for that. It’s not a sin.”

“Slaves are not cattle, for cattle are not humans created in the image of God, but the master owns the slave as a man created in the image of God with rights of a slave refuting this whole idea of–you know—chattel slavery. The Southern Presbyterians refuted that.”

“No orthodox Christian denies the unity of the race as one species created equally in the image of God. Scripture speaks of three races and all three are human and made in the image of God. Yes, there is one human race created in the image of God. I say in ‘Race and Grace,’ Christ saves sinners from all races.”

My fiercest detractors have made this issue on Kinism and Race Realism about the fundamental truths of God’s Word and the gospel. I am sure that there are men who identify as Race Realists or Kinists (i.e. Jared Taylor) that deny the gospel. However, my Kinism and Race Realism does not. And the men that I am reading and following (Robert L. Dabney, Jonathan Edwards, and many others) did not deny the gospel either.

Let me put it in other words. This appeal is about the gospel. It is about the gospel not because my convictions deny the gospel. However, it is about the gospel because the POA has excommunicated me—a man who profess the gospel and lives consistently with it. That, therefore, begs the question, “What does the POA believe the gospel is?” The POA has added to the gospel. In addition to believing the simple gospel, now one must believe that all men are equal in natural capacities etc. This is a very serious addition to the gospel.

Therefore, what is at stake in this appeal is whether the Synod of the RPCNA will keep the simple gospel as the gospel. It is one thing for this Synod or the POA to believe that I am not fit to be a minister in her midst. This is not a significant claim. There are many elders—even in the NAPARC denominations—that are not fit to be teaching elders in the RPCNA and that would not justly pass ordination exams. However, the most serious aspect of this appeal is my excommunication and the identification of the nature of the gospel.

Will you affirm the simple gospel? If not, then you will bring the judgment of God upon you for denying it. The words of Jeremiah before the courts of Israel are useful for the meditation of every member of Synod hearing this appeal:

“As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you. But know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof: for of a truth the Lord hath sent me unto you to speak all these words in your ears.” – Jeremiah 26:14-15

In conclusion, on the basis of the specifications of error annotated above, I appeal to the Synod of the RPCNA to overturn the judgment of the POA.

Respectfully submitted,

Samuel Ketcham

There are two types of people that Christians love. First, they love other Christians. This flows from the gospel of Jesus Christ wherein he died for them despite their sin and unworthiness. “Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another” (1 John 4:11). Second, Christians love their kin. This flows from God’s created order and from that fact that all men were created in God’s image in knowledge, righteousness and holiness. Thus, unbelievers have this type of affection also, but not the first.

However, Christian love is the higher love. All of history is headed in one direction—the second coming of Christ. At that time, He will judge all those who have not obeyed the gospel and will gather His people from every tribe, nation and tongue to dwell with Him forever (Rev 7:9). Christians will not have their unbelieving kin in heaven with them, but they will be worshiping God with all His people from all nations.

And yet, Christian affection and natural affection are not in competition with one another. They are different types of love from a different source. Natural affection is sanctified by the gospel, but it remains. Therefore, for example, we expect a godly parent still to have a unique (natural) affection for his unbelieving adult children. So far, so good.

But what about the natural affection for our extended family or nation? I call this national affection, and it is almost entirely non-existent among White people today. Is that hard for you to believe? Compare the response to George Floyd’s death with Iryna Zarutska’s murder. Although the circumstances of the second were clearly murderous and racially driven, the backlash was nothing like the former. Why? Because Whites are, as a whole, more obedient to civil law, but also because Whites seriously lack national affection.

How do we account for this lack of national affection among Whites in America (and Europe) today? And what should national affection among Whites look like in practice? This will be the theme of my article under three points. First, I will prove the propriety of national affection from Romans 9:1–5, second, show why it is lacking among Whites today, and finally provide an exhortation to White Christians.

Part 1—The Propriety of National Affection

It is good and right to love one’s own ethnic people more than another ethnic people. This doctrine is taught clearly in Romans 9:1-5.

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

First, we must recognize that the object of Paul’s sincere (v. 1) and fervent (v. 2) affection was his own ethnic or national people—the Jews, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites…” Paul did not speak about his wife, or his children for he was not married. Neither did he focus on his extended family (cousins, aunts, etc). He spoke about his national people.

Second, you must see that he loved them more than any other ethnic people. When did Paul never use such strong language to describe his love for the Gentiles? Did he ever wish, if it were possible, that he be accursed from Christ for the Cretians? Did he have great heaviness or continual sorrow for the Spaniards? He most certainly loved the Gentiles inasmuch as he was the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13) and inasmuch as he demonstrated his willingness to suffer extreme hardships for them (2 Corinthians 11:23–28). But he never described his affection for another ethnic people as strongly as he did his own Jewish nation. Christ had sanctified this nationalistic Pharisee, but he still had his nationalism. It was approved by the Holy Spirit (v. 1) and therefore Paul is an example to other Christians to have a greater and special love for their own ethnic or national people. But why did Paul feel this way about the Israelites of his day?

First, because it was only natural to do so. “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8). Why is a Christian who does not provide for his own worse than an infidel? Because even infidels, by nature, have this natural affection. Furthermore, Paul describes one mark of a society given over to sin as one that is “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31, 2 Timothy 3:3).

Second, Paul’s affection for the Jews came from their association with the true religion. In vv. 4–5, he lists various benefits they possessed as being the Old Testament people of God. Likewise, White people in America (and in Europe) are much in the same situation as Paul, for Whites have inherited the true religion. A Christian Black man cannot say this about his ethnic people and hence this is one difficulty that Christian Blacks have in loving their own. Instead, many Christian Blacks want to escape their own people and live, worship and be educated among Whites. It is easier for them to embrace social Marxism because it is an excuse for them not to love their own Black people. After all, the Black community, as a whole, is given over to a liberal and perverted version of Christianity, or many Blacks are not Christians at all. Plus they are, as a whole, dominated by a matriarchal and violent culture.

Yet, Whites in America, despite their sinful culture and more recent apostasy, have a great spiritual heritage. According to God’s gracious providence, they received the gospel. Noah prophesied in Genesis 9:27 that Japheth, the father of White nations, would “dwell in the tents of Shem” which is a reference to them receiving the gospel. And this is exactly what happened in the New Testament. Whites, by God’s gracious providence, received the Christian faith, and later, the Reformation and the English (and other Europeans) took the Protestant Reformation to the American continent and formed a nation. The colonies, and eventually the States, were legally and functionally a Christian people for a long time. Thus, Whites in America have two reasons for national affection—much like Paul.

However, this national affection is almost entirely absent from Whites today. Whites in America are under a strong delusion. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 speaks to a specific context, but the verse demonstrates that God can and does give a certain people over to a strong delusion, “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” By “delusion” I refer to the idea of someone believing a lie despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, and that this irrational grip upon a lie is a sign of spiritual judgment. This is the situation of White people today, and I will expose it under six particulars in my second point.

Part 2—The Delusion from National Affection

1: The Denial of Human Races

Whites today demonstrate an absence of national affection by their consistent denial of the existence of human races. Dr. David VanDrunen, a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is a good example of this specific delusion.

Perhaps the most important thing to say about race, in the typical American sense of the word, is that it does not exist. Unlike sex, it has no biological reality, and unlike ethnicity, it has no cultural reality. The human community simply is not divided into half-a-dozen (or whatever) racial groups united by distinct genetic markers or a common culture.1

If one denies the reality of race, then how can one love his own race? After all, they say, “We are all the same, and the differences amongst mankind are haphazard and can easily change.” But if one reads theologians form the past, they will soon discover that nobody of reputation spoke like this before the 1940s or even 1960s, and that they freely spoke of the races of men without any hesitation.

2: The Denial of Racial Difference

Some White church leaders today, knowing the absurdity and historical bankruptcy of VanDrunen’s statement, will acknowledge the races of men. But then they quickly deny that there is any real, lasting genetic difference among the races. They may even acknowledge that Whites have proven superior in many areas, but then attribute this solely to the gospel, asserting that other races will catch up in time and that these racial differences can change rapidly.

A good example of this specific delusion is found in Drew Poplin of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America: “In grace, there is an entire equality of the nations of this world because they are purchased by the Lamb of God slain for the sin of the world.”2 This is a helpful example of the common dogma of racial egalitarianism. And if some will acknowledge differences in intelligence, virtue, athletic ability (etc.), they will assert that these superior natural qualities are entirely indebted to the gospel and will rapidly change.3 But it is in stark contrast to past Christian authors, common sense, and Scripture.

Charles Hodge, the well-known 19th century Presbyterian theologian, wrote:

It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character; we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, without asking ourselves any questions as to the origin of these distinguishing characteristics. And if we do raise that question, although we are forced to answer it by admitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is the instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind.4

Furthermore, common sense refutes Poplin’s claim. Everyone who is paying attention knows that Blacks are very good at explosive athletic movements. Thus, from 1960 to 2024, the total percentage of Black finalists for the men’s Olympic 100m dash was 92.9%.5 Where are all the Asians, Mexicans and Whites? And why is it so heavily dominated by men from the Black race? Additionally, Charles Murray infamously reports in his extensive study on IQ tests, “The average White person tests higher than about 84 percent of the population of Blacks and that the average Black person test higher than about 16 percent of the population of Whites.”6 What honest person will not also report this based upon his experience between the two races? And what else could be said about the many other races and their unique strengths or weaknesses?

And yet, Poplin’s view is rigidly held despite Scripture speaking to the contrary. In Genesis 9:25–27, Noah clearly speaks to the idea of race. He utters blessings and a curse upon his descendants and references his descendants under the name of three people. For this prophecy to make any sense, there must be races of men biologically connected and differentiated between themselves represented under the names of Noah’s seed. This proves the existence of human races (ref. point #1 above). Furthermore, we note that in this prophecy, his descendants are treated differently. Some of subjected to the other races, one is blessed, and another is enlarged. Why would we assume that these blessings and curses would only impact the spiritual aspects of their race and not the natural aspects?

My point? Whites are deluded from loving their own national people because they refuse to recognize the God-given natural blessings amongst their people. Again, Blacks should love their own also, but they have less reasons to do so than Whites. Whites have built the greatest civilizations and have invented the greatest machines and have many admirable natural qualities compared to other races. Why would they not appreciate, be thankful and be fond of their own people for such things? Because they are not allowed to notice such things. The dogma of racial egalitarianism must be shoved down their throats and blindly held despite the obvious. They must recognize the magnificence of the emperor’s new clothes.

3: The Sin of Nationalism

Another example of White delusion is found in the denial and sin (so called) of nationalism. Joshua Torrey, a ruling elder at Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Austin, Texas posted on X, “Ethnonationalism is a sin.” The post has received 513,000 views.7 By that post, he means to attack the idea that nations are fundamentally composed of people of a common blood, and to assert that amalgamation is Christianity, not Marxism.

Robert Godfrey, a well-known Reformed theologian, has said a similar thing, “Of course, there ought to be an end to white America. America ought to be a multiracial country where everyone is equal.”8 And it is common for these types of Christian leaders to think that foreigners invading Europe and America can be called by the historic ethnicities of those lands. Andy Webb, a minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, is a good example speaking of “brits of Indian descent” as if an Indian or Pakistani could really be British.9 Many others repeat the same garbage. But Church leaders used to think differently.

James. H. Thornwell, a Southern Presbyterian from the 1800s, is a good example of how Christian leaders thought in a former day:

When we came out of the Revolution, it is admitted on all hands that we were separate and independent States. Each was sovereign—that is, completely a nation in itself… the people were of one blood, one language, one religion. They were, in short, one race.10

And Thornwell’s quote is consistent with the Scriptures for it teaches that nations are of a common blood.11 In Genesis 10, each time the nations are summarized under the three sons of Noah (v.5,20, 31) they are described as being an extended family of blood relations, “according to their families.” And when the elders of Israel came to David in Hebron to anoint him as their king, they said, “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh,” for they all shared a common blood in their patriarch Jacob.

My point? How can one love their own nation if they do not exist? The delusion is maddening. An Indian extract living in Britain, even if he adopts Christianity and has a British accent of sorts, is not British and never will be. These men simply want to justify their circumstances so that they can dodge persecution and be “off the hook” in proclaiming God’s whole counsel. As a result, national affection evaporates and this is all despite the testimony of our fathers and the Word of God.

4: The Support of Invasion

Ask yourself the question, “Where do Whites live?” Whites have no place on earth where they only live. This is exactly the opposite for the rest of the races and nations of the world. Whites have had their historic lands invaded, and this invasion has been promoted by the treacherous behavior of White Marxist leaders. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott (among many other civil leaders), openly celebrates the Hindu holy day (Diwali) in honor of his Indian “Texans”—as he calls them.12 Abbott is a Roman Catholic, but still, he is openly supporting and celebrating the replacement of his own ethnic people.

But this type of delusion is also among Reformed church leaders. John Piper, in 2012, posted on X, “Two-thirds of the people in line with me to vote were Somali. I love this neighborhood. This country.”13 And the quote above from Godfrey also demonstrates the same support for the invasion and replacement of Whites from their historic American land.

Why are theses leaders supporting invasion? Many reasons could be given. But most importantly, White people have drunk the poisonous lie that America is a nation of immigrants. They have been told that there is no difference between their White and predominantly Protestant forefathers who settled this land and the many foreign immigrants who have come especially since the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration act. They have been told that America has always been a “melting pot” of cultures, as if the English and Germans were of the same ethnic distance as the English and the Somalians. And as a result, the percentage of Whites in America has gone from 89% in 1940 to 57% in 2015.

White Christian Americans have blindly accepted vague references to loving “the stranger” in the Old Testament instead of considering the actual laws governing naturalization in the Old Testament (see Deuteronomy 23:7-8).14 And as a result they have given the national inheritance of their children and grandchildren, of which their forefathers labored and fought, to a foreign godless horde. It is stealing, and it leads to their amalgamation and replacement. It demonstrates a complete lack of national affection.

5: The Sin of Racial Solidarity

I speak of the issue of inter-racial marriage and how many Christian leaders deal with the issue. Today, Christian leaders think it is sinful for parents to forbid their children from marrying solely on the grounds of race. Rev. Gavin Beers, a minister in the Free Church of Scotland (Cont.), is a good example:

I was asked on one occasion would I support a parent forbidding their child to marry someone from another race… I said, “Is it purely down to them being of another race?” … And the answer was yes. The issue is race... I said, “No, we would not support the father because he does not have just cause. He does not have just cause.”15

Pastors like Beers refer to the “only” stipulation that Paul gives for marriage found in 1 Corinthians 7:39, “only in the Lord,” and cry “legalism!” against those who seek racial solidarity in the marriage partners of their children. Oddly, he is the one making new laws. In reality, Beer’s view is a very modern approach in Christian thought. Consider what Henry Scudder, a Puritan, wrote in the 1640s:

Suitableness not only in regard of age, but parentage would be convenient: let birds of a feather flock together… They seldom join without confusion, which is commonly the event of such unequal matches, being begun with the discord of parents, and end for the most part in the dissension of parties.16

Inter-racial marriage is not a sin per se (in itself), but it can be per quod (according to the circumstances). In certain circumstances, an inter-racial marriage could prove to be imprudent or contrary to other biblical principles.17And Whites used to think this way regarding marriage. Marriage was not just an individual choice, but because it impacted the family and the nation, national considerations would come into the picture.

John Witherspoon (1723–1794), one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and a Presbyterian minister, wrote, “Those who treat marriage with ridicule act in direct and deliberate opposition to the order of providence, and to the constitution of the society of which they are members.”18 He even rebuked those who focused too much on how marriage was “… for the service of the state…”19

But today, White Christians hardly ever think about such national considerations. Why? Because they lack national affection. They are deluded to think that race doesn’t exist, their racial strengths do not exist, and that nationalism is a sin. Inter-racial marriage has now become a sign of “next-level Christianity,” wherein they are demonstrating repentance from their fathers’ “racism.” It is national suicide and a result of a strong delusion. White people are oblivious to the implications of inter-racial marriage and the extinction of their own people. White women are exceedingly vulnerable to this trend and are the frequent targets of the anti-White party. Everyone wants their children to look like them—except for deluded Whites.

6: The Acceptance of Spiritual Judgment

Most White Christian leaders will acknowledge that, to some extent, the American church is under judgment. They may disagree on why but would admit this much. And one would think that these Christian leaders would seek to undo this judgment. But White Christian leaders are so deluded that they accept it as “God’s will” and actively promote the spiritual judgment of their own people in their own historic lands. For example, R.C. Sproul, the imminently respected Reformed theologian, wrote:

I believe that within thirty years the largest and strongest branch of Christendom will be in Africa and that it is absolutely critical that the church in the United States right now pour as many resources as possible into the emerging churches of the Third World, particularly in Africa.20

In this quote, he acknowledges the judgment. Although Europe and America have been the seat of the “largest and strongest branch of Christendom,” it is rapidly degenerating. And what is Sproul’s response to this? “Pour as many resources as possible” in a foreign land! Where is his national affection? Where is the spirit of John Knox who said, “Give me Scotland or I die”?

The quote from Sproul sounds orthodox and pious. However, people forget the context of the historic and righteous missionary movements of the 1700 and 1800s. Men like Adoniram Judson, Hudson Taylor, John G. Paton, David Livingstone, left their land and went to serve Christ by preaching the everlasting gospel among foreigners and idolators. Praise God for that!

However, they left prosperous White nations and White Churches. They understood that that great commission was a call to evangelize their own nation first and, in their time, their own nations were. But today, Whites ignore this historical context: to promote world missions is considered pious, and to say the things I am saying is to be “racist.” No! Whites are just deluded with lies and have no national affection.

Imagine if a White man today wrote a letter to a missionary board requesting support and said:

“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Whites in America.”

He would be rebuked for racism or even excommunicated. It is complete madness! The state of Whites in America and the West is collapsing both spiritually and politically, but Christian Whites must pour as many resources as possible into a foreign country and accept God’s spiritual judgment! Why not consider the reasons for judgment and seek repentance with confession, lamentation, fasting and weeping (Joel 2:12-17)? And why do those like Sproul not do this? It is because they lack national affection. They are deluded into thinking it is unspiritual to love their own people.

I could cite many more examples of White delusion. Their blindness to the anti-White hatred of American society and their blindness to the threat of the Jews are two that immediately come to mind. But I think my point has been well demonstrated. White delusion must be exposed and the unnatural affection that it produces.

Part 3—The Exhortation to National Affection

What must you, White Christian, do in response to this delusion? I will briefly provide five particulars for the individual White Christian.

1: Repent of your own delusion

Where have I rebuked you? Repent and renew your mind, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 13:2). You might have questions about some of the claims I have made. Do not shrug it to the side simply because it is unpopular or brings persecution. Consider it. Study it. Nothing that I have said in this article is a new doctrine. Instead, it was either assumed as true in times past or was righteously defended in more recent days during the Civil Rights movement. Now, some of these ideas have become spiritual crimes and social sins. In truth, they are historic and biblical.

2: Mourn their spiritual and political condition

What feelings rise in your heart when you hear of the murder of a White woman jogging in a park by a Black man or foreign immigrant? What emotions do you have when you hear about the non-White invasion of Europe? Do you have any alarm when you realize that your own people have been diminished from 89% to 57% of the population in two generations? Does it not make you grieve when you see a young, insecure White lady, immodestly dressed and hanging out with Black thugs on a street corner? Does this not make you grieve? You should. You ought to feel as Jeremiah felt in Lamentations 3:48, “Mine eye runneth down with rivers of water for the destruction of the daughter of my people.”

You might object and say, “You are advocating for great upheaval and war!” We are already at war! The invaders and persecutors will not stop until we are conquered. White women are being raped and murdered at a disproportional rate. Wake up!

3: Plead to God for mercy with prayer and fasting

White delusion, the lack of national affection, foreign invasion, replacement, etc.—all of this is a judgment from God upon Whites in America for our national apostasy (Isaiah 9:12–13). Our nation, like Israel in the past, is being judged for her national sins. The solution, unlike Sproul’s suggestion, is to examine ourselves, repent, fast and pray for God’s mercy (Joel 2:12-17).

You can do that by yourself, with your family, with other believers and even in your own congregation. Who can tell if the Lord will repent of the disaster that he is bringing and we perish not (Jonah 3:9)?

4: Endure reproach and persecution

Some recognize the things that I am saying and agree, but are unwilling to do anything about it. Why? Because of the social reproach and persecution that will come to them personally. Instead, they are content with the relative peace that they still have today and act like Hezekiah who, at the announcement of God’s judgment, said, “Good is the word of the LORD which thou hast spoken. He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days” (Isaiah 39:8).

They take no significant thought to the condition of their children and grandchildren. The reproach, isolation, persecution from their church, their family and their society overwhelms them before it starts. Have you forgotten the words of Christ? “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). Live for heaven and forsake your earthly comforts. In return, you will gain a clear conscience and spiritual joy.

5: Do not lose heart

God is sovereign and could lift this delusion quickly if he so desired. He could bring an economic catastrophe that would make America less attractive to foreign immigrants. He could bring about a greater awareness of White solidarity, or a war among our non-White enemies. And yet, if he does not, he has promised to hide his faithful people when he brings judgment upon a land: “Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger” (Zephaniah 2:3).21

The purpose of this article is to gather the “Top Ten” moments (or clips) of my 8 hour trial video into one accessible place so that a wider audience can understand the basic situation without watching all 7 trial episodes on my YouTube channel.1

I will list the ten videos in descending order of importance. Before each clip I include a brief summary of the context and significance of the clip. Notice the included clip length posted above each clip. This is important because, if you do not manually stop the video and move on, the video will keep playing.

Each clip is around 1-3 minutes and the total time for reading this article and watching the embedded clips should not take more than 25-30 minutes. That is much shorter than 8 hours of YouTube video!

So starting from the 10th most significant to the #1 clip…

10 - Improper Procedure

In this clip, you essentially see two examples of improper procedure—which is a huge theme in the trial. First, the prosecutor asks my witness (Rev. Michael Spangler) questions that have nothing to do with his witness or the charge of sin currently being discussed. I assumed Poplin would do this and allowed it to happen because I was confident my witness had the ability to handle the situation and that God would use it to expose their injustice—which He did! So I let it happen without objection. Notice also how the prosecutor seems to struggle in his conscience about asking these questions.

Second, the moderator should have called most of the prosecutor’s questions out of order. Instead, he turned to the witness and said, “Are you willing to answer that?” This is problematic for a witness. It is not the witnesses’ job to ensure correct questions are being asked—that is the moderator’s job (or defense). The question, “Are you willing to answer that?” sounds pious and respectful, but it is actually putting the witness under pressure. If he declines to answer, it makes him look as if he is hiding something.

Clip length (2 minutes, 32 seconds): 1:00:15 to 1:02:47.

9 - Applause and levity

This clip shows the Presbytery after the trial was concluded and the excommunication pronounced and the parties (defense & prosecutor) were dismissed. The purpose of this clip is to show the levity of the court. They had just delivered a man over to satan (1 Corinthians 5:5), and yet they were applauding the prosecutor as if he had one a spelling bee contest. The clip therefore exposes the court’s levity and immaturity. This was a big game for them to win and thought, “We should give our prosecutor an applause!” It is an outrage! They should have, if anything, hung their head in a solemn prayer crying out to God for my salvation and repentance. Yes, they would pray for me, but it was perfunctory.

Clip length (1 minute, 5 seconds): 1:02:35 to 1:03:40

8 - Nature and Grace

A big part of the prosecutor’s problem was his apparent inability to distinguish between nature and grace. He gave a list of 30 inventions by Black people that included the biscuit cutter and the torpedo discharge mechanism (see 30:18). His thinking here demonstrated “white delusion” because he so erroneously tried to shrink the gap between Black inventors and White inventors. In this clip you will get a taste of this problem which really permeated most of the trial.

Clip length (1 minute, 13 seconds): 46:48 to 48:01.

7 - Kinsmen according to the flesh

In this clip you will hear the prosecutor explain what it means to be an American and who his “kinsmen” according to the flesh are (Romans 9:1-3). Paul’s kinsmen were Jews. Who are the prosector’s Kinsmen? Everyone who lives in America—not just White Americans. The odd thing is that he also, in this very same episode, refers to his biological brother as his brother in the flesh (see 33:25). He thus proves to equivocate, for kinsmen is a term referring to a blood relation not a mere cultural identity. Furthermore, he affirms the Jewish lie that America is a “nation of immigrants”2 and proclaims that it is "just the nature of being an American” to accept those who live in our communities as our kinsmen.

This is important because part of the charges against me included that I hated Black. Why did the prosecutor charge me with this sin? Because—among other assertions from the prosecutor—I claimed a greater love for my kinsmen who were southern White people. I said, “The great commission to disciple the nations, means for them to disciple their own nation and people. My people are White Southerners. This is the “nation” that I grew up in and from which I come. I love them and I want to see them prosper and be saved more than any other people.”3

This clip proves to show the prosecutor’s apostasy from common sense. Because he shares a view that is common today, this clip also proves to show the high degree of Marxist thought that has infiltrated the pastoral ministry. The average pulpit is under White delusion. We (Whites) are the only people in the world who cannot have our own ethnic lands (contra Japanese, Kenyans, Saudis etc). Instead, Whites must accept communism.

Clip length (1 minute, 37 seconds): 26:55 to 28:32

6- Implicit Faith

The prosector charged me with violating the 5th commandment by not following the virtues of the men of the RPCNA, specifically the acts of synod and how those acts related to race theory and the abolition of slavery. In his explanation of my error and sin, he demonstrated an implicit faith in the church (like a Papist).

I, on the other hand, make the proper distinction. I believe and uphold the constitution to which I have vowed, however, the acts of synod are not on the same level of authority. We are required to follow the acts of synod, but not bound to believe them. In other words, it is one thing to vow to uphold and believe certain standards (RPCNA Constitution), but another thing to submit to acts of synod (i.e. abolishing slavery etc).

In this video, you will hear me articulate the prosecutor’s problem regarding implicit faith in the church. I ask him, “When would the prosecutor disobey the church?” Notice his reaction. To my memory, he never answered my question.

Please understand that, in the RPCNA, the last time our synod discussed the celebration of Christmas, the synod condemned it. However, it is widely observed (although not entirely) in the congregations and families of the the RPNCA today. Irony and hypocrisy anyone?

Clip length (40 seconds): 42:25 to 43:05.

5 - Speaking off the cuff

In this clip you will hear the prosecutor, at the end of his speech, summarize the areas of doctrine which he asserts that I violated under count 1. I will then take the podium and begin my defense. You will note that I immediately say that my speech will be in the form of a “rebuttal.” You will also note that I frequently reference the notepad that I had used for writing down notes while the prosecutor was speaking. Why?

Because the 6 areas of the constitution that the prosecutor provided were never given beforehand. I did not know what he was really charging me with until he started speaking. The charges did not indicate any biblical or doctrinal evidence. Thus, I had to prepare my defense off the cuff. If one continues to watch beyond 40:05, they will notice that my speech contained “ums” and pauses. Why? I was putting my defense together on the spot. And this was how the trial proceeded. This is just one snapshot of a frequent problem. Who would say that this trial followed just procedures?

Clip length (2 minutes, 50 seconds): 37:15 to 40:05

4 - Point of order

In this clip, there are two things to note: (a) undisclosed evidence and (b) the prosecutor as a witness.

I raise a point of order immediately after the prosecutor’s opening argument (the “point of order” is a Presbyterian custom and is commonly used for the purposes of keeping decorum and proper procedure during a Presbytery meeting). In this case, the prosecutor had mentioned new or undisclosed evidence, and I objected to this and was granted my desire. According to the book of discipline, no new evidence can be presented at the trial. However, this type of thing continued to happen repeatedly throughout the course of the trial. This is just one of many examples wherein he brought up new evidence. I believe that I raised one more objection later in the trial, but lost track of how many times he committed this blunder. I was more concerned about hearing the evidence he actually gave so that I could speak against it, then calling points of order every time he gave new and undisclosed evidence.

Secondly, in this clip, the prosecutor declares his understanding that, “essentially I am a witness in this case as a prosecutor.” The prosecutor as a witness? Why was I not given the opportunity to cross-examine him? Why was I not told that he was a witness? Why was he not on the witness list or sworn in as a witness?

Therefore, in these two ways, the prosecutor demonstrated incompetence in the knowledge of basic jurisprudence. How am I to defend myself if the prosecutor is allowed to present new evidence on the spot as a witness?

Clip length (2 minutes, 47 seconds): 23:33 to 26:20.

3 - Not a sufficient time to prepare a defense

Common sense (and the RPCNA book of discipline) requires a certain amount of time to elapse between the time the prosector submits his charges of sin and evidence to be used in the trial, and the commencement of the trial itself. However, the prosecutor did not submit any biblical evidence in his charges of sin. Therefore, I could not prepare my defense. I had a very deficient understanding of his charges. This is especially helpful when one realizes that the essence of the trial hinged around charges of heresy which imply extensive biblical argumentation.

Thus, starting with episode 3 (count 1 of charges), the viewer will notice that I am constantly writing down notes in my notepad and then, when I take the podium, I use those notes extensively. Why? Because, with few exceptions, I was not sure what the prosecutor was going to say until he said it and I took the podium. I certainly did not have my required 10 days.

Clip length (2 minutes, 9 seconds): 1:08:16 to 1:10:25

2 - No doctrine cited in church standards

This clip shows the moderator (and eventually the entire court) ignoring my objection to the trial on the grounds that the charges of sin against me contained no reference to any doctrine in our church standards. This is especially problematic when one realizes that I am being charged with heresy and that the trial was instigated based upon a public report (my online Substack articles).

The moderator, in his explanation for denying my objection, showed implicit faith in the 5 man judicial commission. This commission was entrusted with the responsibility to review and forward the prosecutor’s charges. It was their responsibility to ensure it was written according to Scriptural and constitutional standards—not mine. They failed to point out the obvious fact that the charges contained no Scripture nor any reference to evidence containing biblical argumentation. The moderator just responded to my objection by saying, “Once again I will rule against your objection based upon the fact that the judicial commission has reviewed this and has found that they are in order.” This is implicit faith and is most unjust.

Clip length (2 minutes, 1 second): 1:06:15 to 1:08:16

1 - No Scripture used in charges of sin

This clip shows the moderator (and eventually the entire court) ignoring my objection to the trial on the grounds that the charges of sin against me contained no reference to Scripture. The moderator, in his explanation for denying my objection, showed implicit faith in the 5 man judicial commission which approved the charges from the prosecutor saying, “I will rule the objection out of order based upon the fact that these charges have been reviewed by the judicial commission and approved as valid charges to be heard in this body.”

This is the most egregious clip of them all. These men rush forward in my prosecution and failed to realize that the charges contained no reference to the only rule of faith and practice—the Word of God. Shame on them!

Clip length (3 min, 19 seconds): 1:01:56 to 1:05:15

Conclusion:

I have included these 10 clips because they are the most effective in quickly communicating the basic problems with the trial. However, these 10 clips are far from communicating the real depth of the injustice done. This was not a football game wherein one can make a “highlight reel” and understand much of what happened by watching those highlights. Trials take reading, deep analysis, and prayer to fully understand.

However, because the trial did contain so many injustices, I still find it helpful to make this article on the “Top Ten.” I trust this article will help a wider audience understand my situation better, understand the apostasy of the broader church from the truth, and navigate my 8 hours of trial video on my YouTube channel.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the historic orthodoxy of Race Realism through the lens of a well-known and respected Scottish theologian. The article contains three parts: (1) an introduction to the life of John Brown of Haddington (2) my own comments on his interpretation of Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25-27 and (3) his own commentary on Genesis 9:25-27 (1814 edition).

1- John Brown of Haddington: A brief biography

John Brown of Haddington (1722–1787) was a Scottish Presbyterian minister, theologian, and prolific author, well known for his Self-Interpreting Bible. Born in humble circumstances in Scotland, and later orphaned at around 11 years of age, Brown received very little formal education. While working as a shepherd, he taught himself to read and write, and remarkably mastered Latin, Greek, and Hebrew largely on his own. He aligned himself with the Secession Church1 and in 1750 he was licensed to preach, and in July 1751 he was ordained as minister of the Associate (Burgher) congregation in Haddington, East Lothian, where he served faithfully for the rest of his life. From 1768 he also served as Professor of Divinity for the Burgher Synod. Brown was a devout, self-made scholar who authored over 50 books, tracts, and pamphlets. He married and had several children, three of whom became ministers. He died in Haddington in 1787 at age 64–65.

Brown’s life is often (and rightly so) celebrated as an inspiring example of perseverance, deep piety, and dedication to making biblical truth accessible to ordinary believers. He is best known for his Self-Interpreting Bible (1778)— a popular study Bible with extensive cross-references, notes, and explanations designed to let Scripture interpret itself.

2- Comments on Brown’s Commentary

But do you know what he said about Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25-27? It might surprise you.

In the next section you will be able to read his commentary on Genesis 9:25-27 from his 1814 edition of the Self-Interpreting Bible. But below are seven summary statements regarding Brown’s own interpretation of Noah’s prophecy.

1. It touches the history of nations for centuries up to the present time.

2. It included a prediction regarding—not only the spiritual decline or development of nations—but also their natural or political decline or development.

3. The curse of Canaan, mentioned in the prophecy, fell upon Ham and all his descendants, just as Noah’s other two sons and their descendants received a blessing.

4. Ham’s descendants, therefore, were subjugated to the other two races of men for centuries and have even been literally enslaved. He cites the African slave trade as part of this subjugation.

5. The destruction of the Canaanites by Joshua did not fulfill the curse of Canaan.

6. The White race (sons of Japheth) was blessed with the gospel and, practically speaking, inherited the gospel-church from the Jews in the New Testament. But they were also “enlarged” and inhabited large portions of the globe.

7. Brown then praises God’s word for such a specific prophecy of what would later become well known history.

You can now read for yourself and see what “racist” things this revered and godly Scottish minister said and see if my seven summary comments are true. In my transcription, I have kept the original wording and format with minor adjustments for modern spelling. All bold font is my own for emphasis.

3- John’s Brown’s Commentary on Genesis 9

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Chap. IX. Ver. 25—27.2 These predictions are greatly extensive; almost every prediction in scripture relative to the Egyptians, Canaanites, Tyrians, and Zidonians, is comprehended in this repeated curse of Canaan. Almost every prediction relative to the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, and Arabs, and especially what relates to the Jewish nation, and Jesus Christ, is included in the blessing of Shem. Almost every prediction relative to the Greeks, Romans, Goths, Tartars, and Turks, and especially what relates to the gospel-church among the Gentiles, is contained in the blessing of Japheth—The fulfillment of these predictions is no less remarkable. Much of the scriptures of the Old and New Testament, much of the history of nations, is no more than an account of it.

The descendants of Ham, by his sons Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan, peopled Africa and part of Western Asia.—For about four thousand years past the bulk of the Africans have been abandoned of Heaven to the most gross ignorance, rigid slavery, stupid idolatry, and savage barbarity. Scarcely ever hath a state formed of them made any respectable figure, the Egyptians and Carthaginians excepted ; and even they had little dominion over any part of the descendants of Shem or Japheth. For many ages the northern parts of Africa were enslaved or harassed by the Assyrian, Chaldean and Persian, descendants of Shem; and next by the Greeks, but especially the Roman and Vandal descendants of Japheth. For eleven hundred years past they have been enslaved by the Ishmaelite Saracens: descended from Shem, or by the Seljukian and Ottoman Turks descended of Japheth. And what multitudes of the Western Africans are annually bought for slaves by the English, the Spaniards, the French, Portuguese, or Dutch, and condemned to the hardest drudgery in their American plantations! It was Canaan, I suppose, who first saw the nakedness of Noah, and told his father of it. His posterity first settled in the west of Asia, and the curse had pursued them in a still more remarkable manner. About A. M. 2079,3 Chedorlaomer, and his Elamite descendants of Shem, rendered tributary the Canaanitish kingdoms of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar. Upon their revolt, he invaded and pillaged their country; Gen. xiv. Not long after they, Zoar excepted, were destroyed with fire and brimstone from heaven, for their unnatural lewdness and other abominations: Gen. xix. The Hebrews, chiefly under Moses, Joshua, and Barak, cut off most of the other Canaanites, and seized on their country ; | Num. xxi. Josh. vi.—xix. Judg. iv. The Gibeonites and others, whose lives were spared, were subjected to slavery; Josh. ix. Judg. i. 2 Sam. v. Solomon had more than 150,000 of them employed as slaves in the building of the temple, Kings ix. 20, 22. and v. 19, 16. They who settled in the north-west of Canaan, and formed the once flourishing states of Tyre and Sidon, were, by the Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Persians, but chiefly by the Greeks, Romans, Saracens, and Turks, reduced to great misery and bondage, till at last they were totally ruined. Is. xxiii, Ezek. xxvi—xxviii. They who fled from Joshua, or afterwards to Northern Africa, and formed, the Carthaginian and other states, were after much contention and mutual enslavement, reduced by the Romans to the basest servitude and misery: and for about two thousand years that country hath been one continued scene of slavery to the Romans, Vandals, Saracens, or Turks. The Phoenician Canaanites, who, pushing their fortunes, settled in the Mediterranean islands, or in Greece, Italy, or on the border of the Euxine sea, have shared a similar fate of thralldom and misery from the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Saracens, Normans, or Turks.

But the countries of Persia, Assyria, Chaldea, Lydia, Synia, Arabia, India, and I suppose most of China, were peopled by the posterity of Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram, sons of Shem. The blessings bestowed upon them by God have been remarkable. The most rich or fertile parts of the world fell to their share. They formed the Assyrian, Chaldean, Persian, and Saracen monarchies, which in their turns enslaved the offspring of Canaan. For two thousand years, from the death of Noah to that of Christ, the knowledge of the true religion, and the new-covenant relation to God as his church and people, were almost wholly confined to them, particularly to the Jews; and from them the Messiah the Lord from heaven, had his human descent; and from them the apostolic founders of gospel-church did spring.

The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madam, Javan, Tubal, Meschech, and Tiras. Their descendants, the Celts or Gauls, the Tartars, Medes, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Turks, etc. prodigiously multiplied and people the whole of Europe and the northern half of Asia, and I suppose most of America. For many ages they have been settling themselves in the original habitations of the posterity of Shem. The Medes, assisted by the Chaldeans, overturned the Assyrian empire: and afterwards assisted by the Persians , whom they had subdued, ruined the Chaldean. Perhaps it was their Scythian brethren, who about two hundred years after founded the powerful monarchy of the Parthians in Persia, and the places about; while multitudes of the overstocked Gauls from Europe invaded Asia, and partly took up their residence in Mesopotamia. About three hundred and thirty years before the birth of our Saviour, the Greeks under Alexander overrun Asia to the river Indus, and for several ages held it in subjection. Next, the Romans pushed their conquests into Syria, Assyria, and Canaan; and for more than seven hundred years retained what they could of it. For many ages the Tartarian Huns and Turks continued to pour themselves into Persia and the countries about. In the eleventh century of the Christian reckoning, the Seljukian Turks formed themselves into the four kingdoms of Bagdad, Damascus, Aleppo, and Iconium, and quickly extended their dominion as far as the Indus. Meanwhile Mahmud-Gazni, with an army of Tartars and others, invaded India and founded there a mighty empire, which continued about two hundred years. In the 13th century Jenghiz Kan and his sons, with their Tartar troops, conquered the greater part of Asia. The empires which they founded in China and in Persia continued about nine generations. In the beginning of the 15th century, Tamerlain with his Tartars overran great part of Asia, and founded an empire in Persia, and another in Western India, which still subsists under the Great Mogul. For about three hundred years the Ottoman Turks have been masters of Assyria, Syria, Canaan, and the places about; while the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the English, the Dutch, the Danes, and French, have been rendering themselves masters of islands or settlements, almost innumerable, in the East Indies. Thus there is scarce one single country of note which originally pertained to the offspring of Shem, but is now possessed or governed by the enlarged posterity of Japheth, Arabian Hejiaz excepted.

Multitudes too of the posterity of Japheth in Asia and America, but chiefly in Europe, have been PERSUADED of God to embrace the true religion and become his church, ever since the Jews were rejected. The far greater part of that race known to us do, and for many ages have, at least in word, made profession of the Christian faith, while very few of the descendants of Shem, or Ham have so much as pretended it. Nor do I remember that the Christian religion ever had a public establishment from one of them, the Abyssinians excepted.—What an exact, an explicatory, and confirming counterpart is the whole providence of God to his word! What understanding of the divine authenticity of the scriptures, and of the love and faithfulness of God, may I attain by a wise and careful observation thereof!

Conclusion

John Brown of Haddington, in this commentary, does not go into all the subjects and topics that are normally associated with Race Realism or Kinism. Nor would we expect him too. However, as far as he goes, he is consistent with Race Realism.

This puts the modern egalitarians (especially those who respect him in their own Scottish tradition) in a difficult position. Pious John Brown of Haddington, in no uncertain terms, delineates a view of this text which is very “racist” and contrary to the normal racial egalitarian dogma of the modern day.

Are they to respect him still? Should they consider his commentary to be the correct one? Why does he say these things but his spiritual ancestors (ARP, RPCNA, FCC, etc) do not?4

Brown asserted these things because he was not deluded by modern Marxist lies, nor pressured by the politics of the modern day. And consider the vast multitude of people that read his Self-Interpreting Bible for generations in Scotland! Was this a common position then? Yes. But today it is very different. Truth has not changed, only the majority opinion.

I hope that the Christians who respect and honor this man will stop and think about the validity of Race Realism. To follow John Brown of Haddington may come with reproach and persecution, but it is right and has many historical witnesses—John Brown being one of them.

Ideally my reader would have already read my article “Race and Noah” and Mr. Norris’ article. However, I will try to write in such a way that those who have not read either will still profit.

1: Arguments related to Noah’s curse in Genesis 9:25-27

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Mr. Norris took issue with my claim that Ham and all of his descendants were cursed despite the text only mentioning Canaan’s name. He argued, instead, that only Canaan was cursed (one of Ham’s sons). The reason for this apparent “injustice” was because Canaan was the youngest son of Ham and Ham also was the youngest son of Noah.

The problem with his position is that it does not actually explain why God cursed only Ham’s son Canaan. Only Ham sinned, why only curse Canaan? Pastor Norris admits that it was Ham that sinned against Noah (although he speculates that Canaan was involved). But why would God punish in this way? Stating that it was because they were both the youngest does not answer the question. How is this just for God to do this? How does this compare to the blessing upon Shem and the enlargement upon Japheth?

Furthermore, it is not clear that Ham is the youngest son of Noah. Norris emphasizes the birth order of Ham’s sons in Genesis 10:6. Canaan is mentioned last and Norris demands that this mandates birth order. However, he seems to ignore the birth order in Gen 10:1 which lists Ham second, not last. Why the inconsistency Mr. Norris? This is especially odd since he claims that both Ham and Canaan were the youngest. The fact of the matter is that the birth order of both Ham and Canaan is not clear (see Genesis 9:24, and 10:21). The fact of the matter is that genealogies are often by birth order, but not always (See 1 Chronicles 2:1-3 as one example). Finally, even if the order of names was somehow always indicating the birth order, then Ham was 2^nd and not the youngest (see Genesis 10:1) and Norris’ argument falls to the ground. He then would be lacking some type of argument for why Canaan only was cursed.

I find this very helpful to bring up because Norris rebukes me for being speculative but then speculates himself about Canaan’s involvement in the actual sin regarding Noah’s nakedness in the preceding text, “…the curse fitting fell on Ham’s youngest son, who may have also shared in his father’s perversions.” Isn’t this speculation, Mr. Norris? All speculate about some of the finer details in this prophecy (even O. Palmer Robertson, whom he cites approvingly). The question is who provides the best and most reliable reasons for what happened in the text. See my article for more information.

Additionally, what was the curse? Norris seems to give two answers. He first quotes Robertson, which provides a more general answer, and then second, Norris cites the conquest of Canaan:

What then is the curse placed upon Canaan? Robertson writes, “it is the curse of being separated from the redemptive activity of God that is implied in the passage. The Lord of the covenant will be the God of some of the descendants of Noah, bringing blessing to their lives. At the same time, others of the descendants of Noah will be cursed by this same God.” There were many nations guilty of idolatry and various other sins on the Earth, but it was particularly the Canaanites who were to fall under the curse of destruction as Israel took hold of the Promised Land. Just like the inhabitants of the Earth in Noah’s day, the Canaanites serve as an example of the judgment that will fall upon those who do not put their faith in the LORD, the God of Shem.

The problem with Norris’ view is twofold. First, insofar as he cites Robertson, he fails to notice the geo-political ramifications of the prophecy. I will take this up in my next point. But secondly, insofar as Norris thinks that the curse is a “curse of destruction” upon the Canaanites, he falls short in two ways. First, the text says “a servant of servants” shall he be to his brethren. It does not say he will be destroyed or annihilated. Second, Norris cannot explain how it is that Canaan will be a servant to Japheth (see v.27). Japheth’s descendants were not involved in the conquest of Canaan, only Shem’s descendants (Israel). Yet the text says, “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

2: Arguments related to the interpretive grid of Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9.

Norris writes:

“One larger issue to be considered is the interpretive grid through which Genesis 9:25-27 is to be understood. In short, should this text be understood as redemptive-historical or political-ethnic?”

Norris makes the same mistake as O. Palmer Robertson.1 In fact, it is almost like Norris failed to read my article, because I go into this part in depth. The question is not whether Genesis 9 is to be understood redemptively in the context of the history of salvation. Of course it is to be understood in this redemptive-historical context. The question is whether this prophecy has any implications for natural things and for the nations coming from these men (Shem, Japheth, and Ham). In other words, is it only about grace and salvation or does the prophecy also speak to what will happen to nations in space and time?

Norris tries to take the “spiritual high ground” by emphasizing God’s plan of redemption in history. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that people today, for obvious social and political reasons, ignore the natural implications of this text and only want to talk about redemption and God’s covenant of grace.

Norris, in this context, pivots to Daniel’s prophecies and makes the same mistake:

“… the heart of the purpose of Daniel’s prophecies was not ultimately to foretell political future, but so that God’s people could know that his covenant promises still endured. Those kingdoms and everything that transpired in subsequent history were subservient to the LORD’s plan of redemption…”

I agree with Norris as far as he goes. The problem is that Norris seems to forget that Daniel’s prophecies also had implications for natural things and the rise and fall of nations. It was not just about the elect coming to Christ. And this is the problem with both Norris and Robertson. They refuse to acknowledge the natural and the political implications of Noah’s prophecy. As I point out in my original article, this was not the habit of commentators before the modern era. Why? Because those commentators wrote before the egalitarian delusion took over the Christian church in the West!

3: Arguments related to racists in the past (i.e. Southern Presbyterians)

Norris, like many of his counterparts (i.e. his fellow ARP minister Ben Glaser, notorious for authoring a statement on racial egalitarianism adopted by various churches), are simply unable to handle the history of this debate. On one hand, they want to honor the racists of their own beloved ARP church (Thornwell)2 and they want to be able to quote and read the brilliant southern Presbyterians (Dabney, Palmer, etc). Yet, on the other hand, they want to humiliate and excommunicate the men today who hold to those same views. It is a hypocritical inconsistency that they are unable to reconcile.

One way Norris tries to reconcile this obvious hypocrisy is to say:

“…none of these historic men of faith were ever challenged in those views by the courts of the church to whom they were accountable.”

First, I would say, “Why does this matter?” If they were wrong, then condemn them. Why do they have to be challenged by the court to which they belong? Does Norris think the church courts are infallible and therefore must be obeyed automatically? Norris seems to be indicating a blind obedience to the courts of the church as if he were a papist and believed in the infallibility of the church. Second, the Southern Presbyterian “racists” absolutely were challenged by the courts of the church to which they belonged.

Where has Mr. Norris been? Does he know there was a war fought between 1861-1865 in the United States called the “Civil War”? Does he know that the mainline Presbyterian church to which these men (Dabney, Thornwell, Palmer) belonged split between the North and the South largely over the issue of slavery? Even if someone wants to say that the church split was not over “slavery” per se, still if anyone knows anything about American History, they know that for decades before the war actually started, Northern Abolitionist ministers had been preaching and rebuking the South for their alleged sins. Books were written, magazines were printed, debates were held. The Southern racists had been rebuked and challenged by the church. In fact, a long bloody war was fought over it!

Norris would like to paint these men as racists who just didn’t realize their time. No! They were stubborn racists who knew exactly what they were doing and who fought tooth and nail to keep their “inferior” slaves! He wants to make their “sin” look all pretty so that he can still have an excuse to read all their great books.

Norris cannot have his cake and eat it too. He must condemn these men as ungodly men who are not worth our time just as he condemns the modern-day racists like me who believe what these men believed.

4: Miscellany:

There are seven comments that Norris makes that I must not let go unanswered. He says many wrong and childish things, but these seven must be answered.

First, he never defines “racism.” He just asserts it as a sin and a problem. This adds to the confusion. What does he mean by racism? Norris needs to realize that one of the reasons why young men are growing warm to Race Realist positions is that the modern mainline church does not have the answers. It is not a sin to notice differences between the races and act accordingly. It used to be called racism, but now that Marxism has almost ruined the country and the younger generation is dealing with the problems and insanity of the cultural Marxism of preceding generations, slighting comments like “racism” just do not cut it. Define your terms. Defend them biblically. Stop asserting and begging the question.

Second, he admits that there is a rise in “Kinist” views in recent times and he attempts to give his reason why:

“To be more specific, if I had to point my finger at any one thing in our own society, I would point it the embrace of wokeism and Critical Race Theory by churches following the George Floyd protests and Black Lives Matter movements of 2020.”

No, Mr. Norris. Actually, the reason why young White men are starting to look around and ask questions is because of the foreign horde that has come into our country in the last 6 years and the fact that anti-White hatred is the sinful “racism” of our day. And the fact that this type of thing has been going on for many years now.

I suppose he is partially correct, but he seems to be saying that the BLM movement and the CRT mania is an isolated issue from the rest of American history. He needs to wake up and realize that his own White people are the most hated of all in America and in Europe. Let me guess, Norris goes to a White church, went to White schools, lives in a White neighborhood and hardly ever talks to minorities? Probably the case.

Third, Norris makes people like me to be guilty by association. He talks about the evolutionary trends of the 19^th century and “scientific race realism” and tries to smear me and men like Dabney with such views. It is just stupid and unhelpful. Just because Darwin drank water and I drink water and Dabney drank water doesn’t mean that we are all evolutionists.

Fourth, Norris reveals his stupidity in the following quote, “It will be objected that our standards never mention the word “racism,” yet neither do they include the expression “internet pornography” because neither were 17th century concepts.” Correct, Mr. Norris, the Westminster Confession of Faith does not mention the words ‘internet pornography’ but it does mention lusting after a women in the heart. Likewise, “racism” is a modern term, but the Westminster divines could have easily written up a Marxist and racial egalitarian paragraph on the doctrine of man. Yet they did not. I wonder why? Maybe it was because they were all White men living in nations which dominated the world? These men never would have thought twice about questioning ethnic nationalism, the exceeding imprudence of inter-racial marriage (especially with Africans), and the dominance of White nations.

Fifth, Norris speaks briefly about inter-racial marriage. I wrote a whole article on the topic but just want to address one small point. Norris brings up Leviticus 18 and the lines of consanguinity and affinity. It needs to be pointed out that Moses only governed how close a marriage could be not how far (in blood) a marriage could be. Why? Because nations were extended families and normally everyone married those near to them. The question was never, “How far away from my own kin can I marry?” The question was, “How close is too close?” Why? Because that was the norm and expected.

People married those near to them. Nations were ethnic, extended families and exceptions were just that—exceptions (Moses, Joseph, Ruth, etc). However, as Norris seemed to suggest, inter-racial marriage is now “next level” Christianity. White Christians today must accept Marxist immigration policies and amalgamate. Indians, Arabs, Mexicans, White and Blacks must just accept one another as Christians and marry without consideration of what God actually wants for nations. This is what Norris is suggesting. It is stupid.

Sixth, near the beginning of his article he states that Kinists are fighting “racism” with more racism. Again, I do not know what he means by “racism”, but I get the impression that he is saying that we need to be nice to our crazy BLM and CRT neighbors. He then exhorts his reader from 1 Peter 3:9, “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called.”

This sounds all godly, but it is pacifism. Norris is like almost every other minister in his denomination and NAPARC. They are pacificists who deny what is going on and who do not want to fight real evil. If someone came into Mr. Norris’ house at night and wanted to harm his family, would he share the gospel with the criminal or shoot him in the chest? Isn’t that the main issue after all—the man is not a Christian? The fact of the matter is that White replacement is a real thing which is orchestrated by the powers that be (largely Jews) and I have every “natural” right to be angry and defend my people. Norris is just a pacifist who is scared and who wants to sound godly by quoting pious verses. After all, the Bible also says, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” So we obviously shouldn’t make any judgments at all, right?

Seventh, it all comes down to ad hominem arguments. At the end of his article, Norris indirectly attacks my character. He says, “The root sin behind it all is that chief of sins, pride because pride is all about seeking and pursuing self-exaltation. Pride is the heart-issue of those who wish to establish white-supremacy in the church and society.” He cannot rest his arguments on exegesis and reason, but must attack my character. Obviously, I must have a heart issue. This is what Drew Poplin did in my own ecclesiastical trial.3 He had to attack my motives and character, not just what I had written.

Consider this claim: Pride is the root heart issue for all the men in the ARP who deny the eldership to women. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the Bible, but instead, these men are proud. They do not want to share the responsibility of leading God’s people with women, but claim all the power for themselves. It is the root issue why the ARP will not allow for women pastors—pride.

Does anybody buy that argument? No. Why? Because it is stupid. Yet, many people who read his article will think that Norris is on to something by saying that I am proud. It is just an ad hominem that means nothing. Why can’t I be concerned about my own people and the fact that they are on the road to extinction?4

Repentance is the solution and primary application to all the problems and sins that I have heretofore described in my articles. There is most certainly a place for political analysis and action by the American Christian prince of the future. And there are a diversity of applications to all the race problems I have described in my articles. However, above all these things, Americans must recognize that God is angry with us because we and our fathers have sinned. We must now turn to the Lord.

This was the message of the prophet in Isaiah 9:12-13 to his own people during a time of national calamity.

“The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the Lord of hosts.”

Notice three points of exposition from this verse and from its immediate context (v.8-17).

First, devastation came to Israel from the hand of the Lord. Although it was by means of the Syrians and the Philistines, yet their invasion and devastation were “his anger” and “his hand.” In v.11, it was the Lord who set up Rezin against Israel. In v.14 it was the Lord who cut off from Israel “head and tail.” It was the Lord “that smiteth them” through the means of foreign invaders.

Second, this devastation came to the nation of Israel because of their sins. This is implied from the context of the book of Isaiah and from the remedy stated in v.13. Furthermore, the nation of Israel was a rebellious people who rejected the worship of the Lord and who had repeatedly violated the laws of God for generations. They were proud (v.9), led by wicked people (v.16) and were a nation of hypocrites and evildoers (v.17).

Third, this devastation continued upon the nation of Israel because they did not repent of their sins and seek Him, “For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts” (v.13). And it was “for all this” (i.e. their national sins) that God’s hand was still heavy upon them (v.12,17). He waited for their repentance, but they did not render it. Therefore, this text teaches the following doctrine:

A rebellious nation will experience national calamities until there is national repentance.

Although Israel in the Old Testament was the covenant people of God, they were also a nation and, as such, received national blessings and curses depending upon their actions as a nation. Furthermore, although the United States of America is not the covenant people of God, yet as a nation it also has experienced national blessings based upon its national faithfulness to God (Psalm 33:12) and as a current rebellious former Christian nation, it is now experiencing national judgments and calamities (Isaiah 60:12).

As I mentioned in point 4 of my previous article Race and Nation, it is the will of God for ever nation to acknowledge and submit to Christ Jesus in its national character. The United States of America, over the past many decades and generations, has rejected its founding and is therefore experiencing great national judgments. The fundamental answer to all her problems is, therefore, repentance towards God and submission to His Son (Psalm 2:11-12) and a firm trust in His mercy and power to bless and prosper her.

This doctrine is reinforced by many passages of Scripture (Deuteronomy 28, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Jeremiah 5:3, Hosea 5:15) and by the lives of godly Hezekiah (2 Kings 18-19) and Josiah (2 Chronicles 34-45). What is important in this article is not so much to elaborate on this doctrine as stated above, but rather to elaborate on what repentance America must give.

What does it mean for Americans to turn to the Lord and to seek the Lord of Hosts?

In this article, I will briefly touch nine sins. As Thornwell said, “It is enough to indicate these types of sin, without dwelling upon them. The important thing is to feel that they are sins.”1 I will not touch on all that could be said (abortion, gay marriage, etc). Instead, we must lay the axe unto the root of the tree (Luke 3:9). I also will speak to sins peculiar to those already in the Christian Nationalist movement.

It is sin that needs to be pointed out, acknowledged, confessed and forsaken. It was not the armies of Syria and Philistia that most endangered Israel, it was their national sin. Likewise, it is not the power of liberals, Muslims, Egalitarians, and Jews that is should be most feared. Instead, it is her own sin that should most frighten us. As Dabney said while preaching on this same text in Isaiah to the Confederate army, “… these are the things which frighten me…It is not the… mammoth armies of our foes… it is not their hundreds of cannon, nor myriads of bayonets… it is the sins of our people and soldiers.”2

1. Repent of religious pluralism

As I have already established in my previous articles, America was a Christian nation.3 However, her laws have become greatly polluted with blasphemy and her people with idolaters. The first amendment has been twisted, over the generations, from its original intent to promote the worship of false gods. The people have, over the generations, become idolaters (Romanists, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists etc.) and have invited idolaters (Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc.) to live amongst her.

Additionally, it must be said that unbelief in Christ, especially for those who have grown up in a Christian family and society, is the greatest of all sins (John 16:9). God is exceedingly angry with the many Whites in America that have given up the Protestant faith of their fathers. God gave this land to her Puritan and Protestant ancestors for the promotion of His glory. Yet, they have rejected Him and have gone whoring after other gods. The revival of religion among her people and their own acceptance of His rights over the nation’s laws and policies is an absolute necessity first and foremost.

There is repentance here particularly for all Protestants (especially of the reformed type like the PCA and others) who have rejected any form of the establishment principle. Contrary to popular belief, the USA does now have an established religion—religous pluralism. Protestant churches and ministers have failed to call their people and their government to repentance and faith in Christ. I hope that the PCA, with the appointment of their recent committee on Christian Nationalism, realizes that the denomination has fallen from the truth and from the testimony of their best forefathers.4 Without such repentance, national calamities will continue to fall upon her.

2. Repent of national pride

I have seen many White nationalists on social media appeal to the “lion of England” or to the “Spirit of America.”5 They believe in a form of White superiority or White pride and they love their own natural people. Yet they fail to recognize their national apostasy and are attempting to recover their land without repentance and without reliance upon God’s mercy. This was a specific sin mentioned in Isaiah 9:9. Ephraim and Samaria had “pride and stoutness of heart.” They declared that they, by their own power, would rebuild the nation from the devastation of foreign invasion (v.10). But for this very reason, God brought a foreign power to judge them (v.11). They trusted in their own strength and did not repent of their sins and trust in the “LORD of Hosts.”

God does not only want nations to be of a common blood and in a common land (Gen 10:5,20,31; Acts 17:26).6 He does not only want them to love their own people with natural affection (1 Tim 5:8, Rom 9:3). But God also wants them to love Him and to be a Christian nation. And this is especially true for any nation that has previously taken Him to be their God (England, America, etc.) and which has subsequently turned from Him. This is why mere political organizations and mere White nationalist groups are not sufficient to accomplish what is needed. There is no power in these things if they are performed without love, faith, and hope in Christ Jesus. Christ can save “by many or by few” (1 Samuel 14:6). He can bring a great change, but He will not do so to apostate nations like England and America merely based on national pride. There must be repentance.

Furthermore, Christian Nationalists of all types must recognize that without a revival of religion, nothing is going to change. Why do we not have a Christian prince in America yet? A major reason is because we no longer have a Christian people in America. We must take the gospel to the streets. The pulpit must revive a powerful gospel message. Christians in America must return to prayer and fasting and hope in God’s powerful mercy to remove the idols, the false prophets and the unclean spirit from the land (Zechariah 13:2). Do we need a political counter-revolution? Yes. Must a revival of religion take place first? I am not sure. But there must be a revival of religion, not just a political counter-revolution (Psalm 67, 126). We need Christ to bring this revival, and we must, therefore, get on our knees and ask Him with much confession, fasting and lamentation (Joel 2:12-13).

3. Repent of White delusion

White delusion is the current ideological framework of the vast majority of Whites in the West. They have been bewitched to think that natural affection is only for minorities and the Jews. They have been bewitched to think that inter-racial marriage is “next level” Christianity, and that mourning over the plight of their own ethnic people is earthly and unspiritual. They have succumbed to believe in the so-called sin of “racism.” A major thrust of my previous articles has been directed at this ideology. And because of this mindset, White women think it is a sign of spiritual maturity to marry a man of another race. Whites think ethnic segregation is wrong, and that fellowship with Christians of other races can replace their fellowship, duties and love for their own ethnic people.

There are many examples of this great White delusion: White couples adopting colored children or John Piper declaring how he loves Somalians being in the USA.7 However, I recently found an example of this delusion in the writings of R.C. Sproul. I specifically quote him because he is seen as a great expositor and defender of the Reformed faith. And although I am thankful for aspects of his ministry and life, this idea in the below quote (from 2010) must be thoroughly rejected.

“I believe that within thirty years the largest and strongest branch of Christendom will be in Africa and that it is absolutely critical that the church in the United States right now pour as many resources as possible into the emerging churches of the Third World, particularly in Africa.”8

Why should Christians think that it is “absolutely critical that the church in the United States right now pour as many resources as possible” into a foreign land when their own people and their own land is experiencing a massive spiritual plight and judgment? It is insane. No, it is suicide. And this way of thinking is uniquely the White man’s delusion.

It is not about rejecting world missions. World missions is a clear command of God (Matthew 28:19-20).9 Yet, this command to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ must be performed first among one’s own people. The great missionary movements of the 18^th and 19^th century were performed by White Christians in healthy and prosperous White Christian nations. These nations are no longer healthy and spiritually vibrant. White Christians must wake up to the plight of their own people and their own country and seek her good. Instead of the words of Sproul, the words of Jeremiah ought to be the cry of the day, “Mine eye runneth down with rivers of water for the destruction of the daughter of my people” (Lamentations 3:48).

4. Repent of Christian Nationalism

Many Christian Nationalists desire for the USA to be inhabited by Christians and to be governed by Christian laws. This is good as far as it goes and has been articulated by Stephen Wolfe in his book A Case for Christian Nationalism. But the problem with his book (and the many people that promote this type of Christian Nationalism) is that he is building on a foundation of sand, not rock. For us to truly have Christian Nationalism, we first must truly have nationalism.

Imagine a married couple who desired to be Christians and have a faithful marriage and yet the wife functioned as the breadwinner and the husband stayed home with the kids. Both functions are being performed, but by the wrong people. The foundation has been turned upside down. Christian Nationalists who ignore what God has said about nations are doing the same type of thing. Christians must strive for a nation that is confirmed to God’s word in all things, not just inhabited by Christians.

America is uniquely a nation that has been judged by amalgamation and White suicide. From the times of the Civil War, through the civil rights movement, to the days of the Hart-Celler Act and mass immigration, America has become a land of all peoples. As a result, there is and has been a war between the races. And racial strife will continue even if a revival of religion comes. And this is the case because God has not intended for the nations of the world to amalgamate. He has not reversed Babel. It is not possible for full peace and tranquility to occur without returning to His intention for the nations to be of a common blood, in a common land.

This means that the government must secure deportations of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants of foreigners in the first and second generation, as well as the denaturalization of many legal immigrants who have no biblical right to have citizenship in White America, and the segregation of the people who remain in their own communities, schools and neighborhoods.10 Otherwise, racial strife will continue, even with an outpouring of the gospel of peace. God is a God of means. He has appointed “the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Until this amalgamation is reversed, we will continue to experience racial strife. People will naturally seek the good of their own people at the expense of deranged White people who refuse to do the same.

I trust that one day a Christian prince will find a way to do this that is according to the general principles of God’s word and that is both wise and fair to the various different types of people that live in America. A minister of the gospel can only point the Christian prince to what principles are consistent with God’s word. It is not the minister’s or the church’s duty or office to develop a thorough political plan. But it is the office of the Christian prince.

5. Repent of cowardice

Christians today, especially White ones, are cowards. The ministers are the guiltiest. Although many “visible” Christians today refuse to recognize the truths about race and have fully imbibed the Marxism and egalitarianism of the day, still many do recognize the basic truths of my previous articles. Yet, they refuse to do anything about it. Why? Because they are afraid of the persecution that will come. They are cowards.

I am no prophet and make no predictions regarding whether a civil war will occur in America or whether the change will be slow and less violent. But either way, blood, sweat and tears will be required of God-fearing Christians to see this nation return her biblical foundation.11

It is interesting to read about the Civil Rights movement and the courage that the liberal Marxists demonstrated in achieving their goals of integration and amalgamation. Although they were anarchists against the law, they showed enormous courage to achieve their goals. They endured reproach, punishments, and imprisonment. Yet, Christians today, who should be far more zealous, have almost no zeal for God. They have almost no strength or courage. The minsters, who should be leading the God-fearers, are the greatest weaklings.

Although, I have many issues with Nick Fuentes, I must admire his courage. He is a foul-mouthed Roman Catholic to say the least. Yet, he is brave to speak honestly about Black crime and the power of the Jews. Where is the courage of the Protestants? It is almost non-existent. This is a great reproach to Christ and the true religion.

Instead, ministers who have Race Realist convictions or sympathies, say nothing. They are afraid to lose their social standing and their stipend. They take no heed to the call of God to be “faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2) proclaimers of His word but take great heed to be “successful” according to the standards of the world. As a result, the people of God are ignorant, and the darkness grows. These ministers are like Hezekiah, saying, “There shall be peace and truth in my days” (Isaiah 39:8).

These ministers console themselves to think they will submit to the providence of God and just focus on reformed doctrine and the simple gospel. And yet, they ignore the most obvious problems of their time. They are not watchmen (Ezekiel 33:1-9) for they have not cried aloud against the unique sins and enemies of their time.

These men, and the many Christians that follow them, love comfort. They still enjoy relative peace, especially as they hide from the brown masses and move to more White and Christian parts of the country. Some satisfy themselves with abortion protests and gay-pride protests, and yet the vast majority of them do not even do this much. They satisfy themselves by looking at how they have reformed from less pure versions of Christianity and are more “reformed” than their parents. Yet, they do not continue to reform nor perform their office fully.

Shame will come upon these ministers who have not taught “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). I am afraid that, concerning most of them, it will be said, “You are the least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19). I am afraid many of them are not even in the kingdom of heaven. Their lives demonstrate not the power of godliness, nor do their sermons have converting power. Although their ministries may be orderly and without open moral scandal, they are whitewashed tombs—hypocrites (Matthew 23:27-28). They must repent of their cowardice and their desire for comfort. Ministers, perform your office and be faithful! O Christian, be zealous for your God and suffer for righteousness’ sake!

6. Repent of a “party spirit”

Although I deny that Roman Catholic Americans can be part of a future Christian America, yet I do not deny the same to all my other Protestant brothers who are not Presbyterians. Though they be of a different shade of Protestantism, they are my national and spiritual brothers. And although it is important to be founded upon the word of God in all things and to seek full reformation, yet I will not quench a smoking flax (Isaiah 42:3). I will work with my Protestant Christian Nationalist brothers who are moving in the right direction, who do not have a persecuting spirit, and who are still learning (as I am) of God’s word.

It is a shame to see some Christian Nationalists condemn and disown other Christian Nationalist of a different kind. Do they not recognize who the real enemy is? Fratricide is always a horrible thing. One of the saddest stories in all the Civil War is how General Stonewall Jackson was shot accidentally by his own men. It is one thing to take causalities of war in a well fought battle and in a just cause. It is another thing to inflict wounds upon one’s own fellow soldiers. We must take great care not to commit spiritual fratricide.

We must understand the real problem. It is not sloppy X posts about Hitler and Blacks from a Race Realist. It is not Stephen Wolfe’s failure to recognize that his nationalism is unbiblical and underdeveloped. It is not the Ogden Boys and Joel Webbon (and the various others) that have softer views on Rome or on inter-racial marriage etc. The problem is the bloodthirsty liberals, the persecuting egalitarians, the deceitful Jews and the covetous foreigners.

We must be willing to continue to talk amongst ourselves without canceling and attacking each other. If there is grace, if there is a love for Christ, if there is a willingness to suffer persecution, then we must work with one another. This must be the spirit of our movement and our people (Philippians 4:2, Ephesians 4:1-3).

We must be committed to basic principles of Christian Nationalism. Yet, if we are inordinately concerned about the promotion of our own social media accounts and tear down others who are helping the greater cause—we are the problem. Repent of your party-spirit! Be charitable whenever you can and to whomever you can in the movement. “No enemies on the right” may not be the best slogan, but it is helpful. Wake up to the plight of our own people, wake up to the real enemy, and direct your guns at them, not your own brothers.

Let me return to what I said about Roman Catholics. It is one thing to cooperate with Romanists who are attacking liberals. Yet, it is entirely another thing to partner with Romanism. From episode 1 of Webbon’s interviews with Nick Fuentes, it appears clear to me that Webbon’s version of Christian America includes Roman Catholics as fellow Christians.12 Although I acknowledge White Roman Catholic Americans as my national brothers and that they have a natural right to live in this country, they are not my brothers in Christ. God will not honor any formal and active partnership or alliance with the great harlot of Rome. When the patriot Protestants of America have recovered their land from foreigners, idolaters and raging liberals, they will have their historic war with the Pope. But meanwhile, any attempt of active partnership with Rome will not be blessed by God. We cannot forget history nor the evil of “that man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

7. Repent of complacency

Although there is such a thing as a zeal for God that is not according to knowledge (Romans 10:2), a much more common problem today is simply lack of zeal itself. Christians are complacent. The plight of the White man in the West and in America is very great and very imminent. There is no time to wait. We are in a fight for our survival. We are in a war.

In a wrestling match, it doesn’t matter how many points you have. If he pins you, the match is over and he wins. Due to the amalgamation of the races, mass-immigration, inter-racial marriage, and the political betrayal of our people, Whites are about to be extinct as any recognizable people on the earth. This is not an overstatement.

Whites have no place to live. They have been invaded, and are being diminished and replaced in all their historic lands. Thus, there is no room for complacency. Wake up! Where is your zeal for your own people, your own children and for your future posterity? The enemy is at the door with blood dripping from his sword.

Currently, White people still have some power in Europe and in America. They still have some numbers. But in two or three generations, they will not be able to defend themselves, even if they were united and zealous. The foreign godless horde is rapidly overtaking our lands. Where is the zeal? Where is the urgency?

Live not for your own comfort. Love your own children and do not forsake them to the growing enemy. Do something—now. Do everything you can—now. You are about to pinned. Soon, your children and grandchildren will be plundered and abused into amalgamation and oblivion.

One practical and basic thing that must be done is the revival of the traditional, large, protestant home. Have large families. Have as many kids as you can. Husband and fathers, work harder to provide for your families so that your wife can stay home. Wives and mothers, sacrifice yourselves in the home and in raising children. Women, abandon the workplace and return to the domestic life. You were made for this function and you are the greatest weapon to your nation (and the church) being in the home, raising children and supporting your loving husband.

It may be God’s sovereign plan to judge the Christian White nations of the West. He would be totally just in doing so. We have, collectively speaking, despised our heritage, privileges and duties. Yet, we still have our duties. Ends are God’s, duties are ours. As I said at the beginning of my first article, we are in a race war and must recognize that and start fighting. “Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not” (Jonah 3:9)?

8. Repent of idolatry

I have not spoken on this issue in my articles. Yet, an article on national sins and repentance is not complete without a word on this matter. The problems facing America and the American church are deep and multi-faceted and predate the war on race. The errors of egalitarianism that have come into our nation over the last several generations may be the most immediate threat. But the presence of foreigners and the diminishing of our own White people, is a judgment based upon previous sins. God is angry with the church and her many violations of the first table of the law. I have already mentioned the violation against the first commandment. Now I will focus on two others: the second and the fourth commandment.

Idolatry is not only the worship of false gods, but it also rightly characterizes the false worship of the true God. God has commanded His people to worship Him only by His express command (Exodus 20:4-6; Deuteronomy 11:32, Mark 7:7, Colossians 2:23). The imaginations and preferences of a man, a minister or a congregation do not enter the equation. He controls His own worship. Any attempt of the true people of God to worship God according to their mere tradition or mere liking is sin. If this is disobeyed, our religion will be perverted, and our hearts will be polluted. Our knowledge of the true God will be diminished and, most of all, God will be dishonored and become angry. This was one of the major reasons why God was angry with Israel and Judah. Notice the language of Jeremiah 7:31. It was not only that they sacrificed and murdered their own children, it was also because God did not command them to do it. Read the text, “And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart” (Jeremiah 7:31). When it comes to the worship of God, it is not a question of what you like, but what God commands, “When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts” (Isaiah 1:12)?

Has God required in His word what you and your congregation do in worship? Has he commanded the holy days that you observe? Has he commanded the songs that you sing? Has he commanded the ordinances that you observe? Is there any reference at all in Scripture to the offices and positions of your church? Is the type of preaching you hear according to the preaching exemplified and commanded in Scripture? These matters are of great importance and a refusal to recognize God’s commands in worship bring great wrath upon a Christian people.13

9. Repent of sabbath breaking

The fourth commandment, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8-11), was largely honored in America’s past. However, especially since World War II, it deteriorated quickly and even many of the outward adherences to it were put off by the state shortly thereafter. Now the 4^th commandment is virtually ignored by Christian Americans and by the nation. Yes, God’s people still worship on the morning of the Lord’s Day, but that is merely one aspect of the 4^th commandment.

Instead of spending the whole day in the private and public exercises of God’s worship, Christians spend 1-2 hours in the morning worshiping God and then go home to relax and have family time or worse—work and play. No wonder Christians today are so experimentally and theologically shallow! In Christian nations in the past (and across most of Protestant America), Sabbath laws were upheld, and the people honored the sabbath with no work and no play (Isaiah 58:13-14) and sought Christ as their chief joy.

However, today, the sabbath is just like any other day. As a result, God is angry. His people have stolen His time and His honor. They would rather have the world. As the prophet said, “For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2:13). Instead of fellowshipping with Christ on the Lord’s Day and enjoying His presence, they want more of the world. Instead of attending an evening service, they watch NFL football. Instead of having extended family and private worship, or hosting fellow believers for Christian conference, they play golf. They will do things that are not sinful in themselves and yet, by doing these things on the Lord’s Day, they despise His grace and declare that being in His presence is not “fullness of joy” (Psalm 16:11). They want more of the world and its passing pleasures and vanities, and less of God. By doing this they testify that they want to go to heaven but have no desire for God to be there upon their arrival. They just want joy and peace and comfort—as if true joy, peace and comfort were detached from communion with God.

This also was a great reason why Israel and Judah were judged and cast into exile (Jeremiah 17:27). And this is one fundamental reason why so many judgments have fallen on America today. God is angry. He wants His honor, He wants His time, He wants His worship—and His people are not giving it to Him.

Conclusion:

Trust not in plans, not in mere national pride or in personalities. Trust not in the mere strength of your race. Turn to Him. Repent of these and many other sins. Seek the “LORD of Hosts.”

And remember that He is the Lord of Hosts—the Lord of armies. It is a small thing for the One who created the world, who numbers the stars and calls them all by their names, to send showers of blessings upon a repentant nation.

Christian Americans face many strong enemies. Yet, God is greater than all: “Through God we shall do valiantly: for he it is that shall tread down our enemies” (Psalm 60:12). Repent and turn to Him. This is the only way.

Inter-racial marriage is probably the most personal and practical matter of all the topics that I have addressed in my articles thus far. Marriage is itself a very important and personal matter. But furthermore, it does not only concern those who are themselves in an inter-racial marriage, but also those who have openly supported them in such a marriage. Thus, writing on this topic will require patience and even greater biblical clarity.

Furthermore, if the American church will regain a thoroughly biblical understanding of nationalism, this topic must be addressed. Many Christians want a nation of Christians. Few Christians want a nation that is biblical. Then, we must remember, that America is currently mixed with different races and ethnicities. It is not enough to talk about biblical principles of immigration and naturalization. Massive remigration and deportation is not a current practice and thus America is very diverse. Therefore, this is an issue facing many in America. Some may say that inter-racial marriage is still very rare. In my experience, it is now far more common than people realize, and it is happening at a rate far more than any other time in America, Black men are marrying White women and White men are marrying Asian women, and all in between.

Is the current practice in America biblical?

I have frequently come across Christians who will boldly assert that God has only made one stipulation regarding marriage, “only in the Lord” (1 Cor 7:39). Of course, for a Christian, inter-faith marriage is always a sin. It directly contradicts God’s law for marriage (Deut 7:3-4, 1 Cor 7:39).1 It is a sin absolutely speaking. There is never a case when one should marry an unbeliever.

But the problem is that many Christians cite this as the only rule of marriage. All that matters is to marry a Christian! They love to quote some older Protestant saying this exact thing. Yet, they forget that such respected commentators lived in a White nation wherein inter-racial marriage was either outlawed or non-existent. Christians in past decades and centuries simply did not face the same circumstances of Marxism, globalism and egalitarianism which bother the church today.

The wisest of Christians and Christian pastors today understand, however, that denominational agreement between potential marriage partners is very important.2 Therefore, they will add this stipulation as a matter of prudence. By this reference to “prudence” they imply (not making it explicit in most cases) that it is a sin against prudence to ignore doctrinal incompatibility in a marriage partner.

But these same Christians have a “under-developed” view of prudence regarding marriage. They do not include other matters of “prudence” which they ought. When it comes to racial differences, they either deny or minimize them entirely. This is one reason why I have waited to tackle this topic until after writing on the doctrines of Race and Nationalism. Because it is only after looking at these questions that we see the full picture of matrimonial prudence.

Rev. Gavin Beers is a perfect example of one who does not consider all the biblical factors. It is even more important to cite him as an example because, in my small circle of confessional Presbyterians, he is held in such high esteem.3 What does he say? At the close of his sermon on the topic of inter-racial marriage, he said:

“I was asked on one occasion would I support a parent forbidding their child to marry someone from another race… I said, ‘Is it purely down to them being of another race? Are we talking about a black person who is a solid reformed Christian? Who is the child of one or two generations of solid reformed Christians?’ And the answer was yes. The issue is race... I said, ‘No, we would not support the father because he does not have just cause! He does not have just cause! We would walk through it with him and her pastorally. We would try to work things out. But this is a case where his preference is being made a law binding the conscience of a child where the Lord has left it free.’”4

This appears logical and pious at first glance. It especially sounds godly when you hear it in his Irish and emotional accent. But, in fact, it is antinomian—against God’s law. Rev. Beers, and the many other Christian pastors like him, operate from a Marxist perspective of race and nation and, therefore, they miss the mark. They ignore various other biblical laws and principles that inform the full picture of who are valid and appropriate marriage partners. What are those biblical laws and principles?

The thesis of this article is that inter-racial marriage is not a sin in itself (per se), but it can be a sin in certain circumstances (per quod).

We must understand our current circumstances (hence the previous articles on the topics of Race and Nationalism) and then we are able to see further biblical principles that enable us to judge a particular case.

This article will, therefore, have three main parts: (a) Circumstances wherein inter-racial marriage violates biblical principles (b) Circumstances wherein inter-racial marriage violates Christian prudence and (c) a caveat that will give the serious Christian reason to doubt the prudence of inter-racial marriage today—the history of inter-racial marriage in the USA.

1 - Circumstances wherein inter-racial marriage violates biblical principles

(A) When an inter-racial marriage violates the “Christian nation” principle.

Christians today are individualistic. When determining who they would like to marry, Christians list out their likes and tastes without any consideration given to the factors pertaining to the family and nation in which they live. However, Christians used to consider these factors.

Rev. William Jay (1769–1853) said, regarding marriage:

“It cannot be carelessly contemplated by legislators, by politicians, by moralists, by divines – and can it be slightingly regarded by the individuals themselves? The effect extends to families and communities…”5

Then he points out that marriage is a civil contract, not just a ceremony observed by the church, thus implying the need to consider civil issues related to marriage, “If some contend that marriage be nothing more than a civil contract, all must allow that it is nothing less…”6

John Witherspoon (1723–1794), one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and a Presbyterian minister, wrote something similar, “Those who treat marriage with ridicule act in direct and deliberate opposition to the order of providence, and to the constitution of the society of which they are members.”7

Here he has an eye to the “society” (or nation) in which people exist who get married. Later, he rebuked those who focused too much on how marriage is “… for the service of the state…”8 In his day, people were too focused on how marriage is an aid to the state. But in today’s America, Christians either do not know what a biblical nation is, or hardly ever consider how a particular marriage may harm their own nation.9

John Angell James (1785–1859) was an English nonconformist clergyman and influential Christian writer, known for his practical and evangelical works. He wrote, “A very great portion of the misery and of the crime with which society is depraved and afflicted is the result of ill-formed marriages.”10 Notice he did not truncate the negative effects of an “ill-formed marriages” to only the family or to the church, but to society (i.e. the nation).

In 1878, Justice Amos R. Manning spoke for the Alabama Supreme Court against the promotion of inter-racial marriage. One point he made was that marriage created homes and served as “nurseries of the state.”11 He was, therefore, concerned about how inter-racial marriage influenced the strength of the nation.

Do you think that way about marriage? Does it have any implications for the nation that you live in? You should. Better, how will you judge that a certain marriage would be of use to the nation? We need to be renewed in our mind regarding this matter, and not conformed to this world (Romans 12:2). A few things come to mind.

First, we must remember what a nation is, in its most fundamental aspect, a large extended family. As I stated at length in a previous article,12 a nation has a distinct blood. In Genesis 10, when God presents to us the concept of the nations, we read how all the nations were propagated through a common progenitor (or father), “in their families” (Gen 10:5,20,31). Israel was a nation from Jacob and his twelve sons. The tribes were made up of families (Josh 7:17-18). Furthermore, in the laws of Moses, God forbid them from marrying the other nations (Deut 7:3-4). It is correct that this prohibition (Deut 7:3-4) was based upon that fact that the other nations were, de facto, idolators. However, it is not true that any given Israelite could then marry any given gentile convert. Instead, there were only certain cases. This further analysis is what is missing in the mind of Christians today, and I exhort my detractors to heed the following arguments and cases.

For a foreign man to enter the nation of Israel and then marry an Israelite women, he had to be in the third generation of a nation near in kin to Israel (e.g. an Edomite, see Deut 23:7). Or he had to be a gentile convert from a nation which had performed some national service to Israel (e.g. an Egyptian, see Deut 23:8). In the event of an Israelite man marrying a foreign woman—he had greater liberty. In Deut 21:10f, there was an allowance for Israelite men to take foreign women of the nations in which they conquered, but only those nations which were “very far off” (Deut 20:15). This is one reason why I am more sympathetic to the White men who took wives from the native Indians, or later, “war brides” from Japan, Korea and Vietnam. In the cases that occurred in Israel, and in America, nature takes over and their children grow up following the God and the country of their father. The reason for this is because, according to the Scripture, the man carried the ethnicity (e.g. Moses, Joseph, Boaz, Jephthah). And, according to God’s providential plan for the family, the wife and children follow the father and husband in all things (cultural and spiritual things included).

But if you stop and think about it, how many inter-racial marriages today fit into these categories? How many White women are marrying men who are “near of kin” to them in the third generation of American immigrants?

(B) When an inter-racial marriage violates the “extraordinary” principle.

How often do I hear Christians cite the few examples of inter-racial marriage in the Bible and conclude, “See, the Bible does not forbid it!” Technically, they are correct. Inter-racial marriage is not a sin per se. However, the question is not, “Are there biblical examples of inter-racial marriage in the Bible?” Instead, the question is, “What were the circumstances of those approved biblical examples and is that the circumstance of inter-racial marriage in your case?” Consider how extraordinary the approved biblical examples of inter-racial marriage were.

Joseph married Asenath—the Egyptian (Gen 41:45). Joseph was wrongly sold into slavery and separated from his family and kindred. He was a Christ figure who would save his brothers. What else was he supposed to do? Have you been sold into slavery in a foreign country away from your family and kindred to be a type of Christ to save the church (Ps 105:17, Gen 50:20)?

Moses married Zipporah—the Midianite (Ex 2:21).13 However, Moses also was a Christ figure who was forced to flee from his people into another land for many years. His departure from his people was an act of faith in an extraordinary situation (Heb 11:27). What else was he supposed to do? Have you been forced to leave your host country and reside in a foreign land for many years away from your ethnic people?

Ruth’s first husband wrongly left the promise land (Ruth 1:1ff.). Instead of fleeing the land of promise due to a famine, he ought to have consulted the law of Moses (Deut 28), realized the famine indicated national judgment, stayed in the promised land, and encouraged national repentance. Instead, he sinfully fled to Moab. It is very significant that both Naomi’s husband and her two sons died. It is hard not to see the judgment of God in their death. Then, because God is gracious, God converted Ruth’s heart, and she returned to the land of God’s people. Due to a ceremonial law that is no longer in existence (the laws of levirate marriage in Deut 25:5-10), Boaz was required by God to raise up a seed for his deceased relative. How many marriages does this circumstance apply to today? Yes, it proves that inter-racial marriage is not a sin per se, but under what circumstance did God sanction it? And do those circumstances apply today?

Furthermore, Ruth and Boaz were distant cousins. This would not have technically been an inter-racial marriage, but a cross-ethnic marriage much like a European today marrying an American.

There are other examples of inter-racial marriage that are approved. The “war brides” of Deut 21:10ff, have already been mentioned. Salmon and Rahab’s marriage would be another approved example (Josh 6:22-25, Matt 1:5). Rahab had performed a unique service and was offered pardon although her whole nation was cursed with destruction in the conquest of the promised land. Again, it proves that inter-racial marriage is not a sin per se, but under what circumstance did God sanction this union? Are those the circumstances of today? Do we not see how unique this was?

There are other places in Scripture wherein an inter-racial marriage is described, but they are either not approved— such as Solomon in 2 Chr 8:11 who practiced polygamy by marrying an Egyptian— or, in other cases, the lawfulness of the marriage is unclear. For example, Uriah the Hittite married Bethsheba (2 Sam 11:3). Was this lawful? Most likely not (especially if Bethsheba was an Israelite woman). But remember (before one assumes that it was lawful), David did not always enforce God’s laws (e.g. he should have executed Joab for murder). There are other examples, but we are safe to conclude that this was a description of what happened, not a prescription for what God approved (see also Gen 46:10, 1 Chr 4:17-18, 1 Chr 2:34-35, Acts 16:1-3, 24:24). At the very least, we should withhold judgment and refer to the clearer places such as Moses’s laws (Deut 23:7-8, etc).

Finally, we should consider more carefully the modern issue of race-mixing. It is one thing for a particular and extraordinary case to be approved which does not impact the overall blood lineage of an entire nation and race. It is another thing to condone or encourage the mass mixing of races. This is one reason why I have already written on race and nation. God has not only created all men in His image, but has also ordained, in His providence, for the races of men to be different, and to inhabit separate places of the world (Acts 17:26). Who are we to undo this pattern? Race mixing is not God’s way. The existence of the races of men (White, Black, Asian, etc), in God’s providence over the millennia, imply that God has ordained and desires the races to stay separate. Thus, the question is, “Does inter-racial marriage today in America serve to support this clear intention of God? Or is there some sinister plot to mix the nations and undo what He has ordained since the Tower of Babel in Gen 11?”

14

Before leaving the idea of “extraordinary”, it is helpful to consider the “ordinary.” Both in Israel, but also before Israel in the life of the patriarchs, we see the principle established that people, ordinarily, marry those around them (i.e. in their extended family or race). We see this principle in various places in the book of Genesis with the patriarchs.15 Abraham instructed his servant to find a wife for Isaac in in Gen 24:3-4:

“And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac” (see also v.7, 27, 37-38, 40).16

(C) When an inter-racial marriage violates the “equally yoked” principle.

The Scriptures teach that Christians are not to be “unequally yoked” with unbelievers (2 Cor 6:14). This text does not have marriage directly in view; however, we rightly assume it from the lesser to the greater. If God forbids Christians to come into alliances of business, friendship, community, with unbelievers, then He forbids also such alliances in matters of greater importance such as marriage. This is how commentators and theologians of the past have understood this text, and they have specifically applied this verse to marriage.

However, this text also teaches that Christians are not marry other Christians that are unequal in various other ways: doctrinal convictions, age, education, rank, etc. Amos 3:3 says, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” How can two people marry and prosper in their union if there is such great disparity on such things? This issue also touches on the matter of prudence. Is it prudent to enter a marriage of great disparity? This was the thinking of Christians in former days.

John Angell James wrote, “Prudence forbids all unequal marriages.”17 He then went on to enumerate specifics about religion, age, rank and income. John Robinson, the early pilgrim father, spoke about “fitness in marriage” and by that he meant the same thing (i.e. fitness in age, estate, religious convictions, etc).18

However, why stop with only the ideas of age, rank and income? These men wrote in a day wherein inter-racial marriage was either unheard of or illegal. They had no reason to speak on it. But today it is different.

However, Henry Scudder, in his book The Godly Man’s Choice: A Puritan Manual for Marriage, wrote:

“Suitableness not only in regard of age, but parentage would be convenient: let birds of a feather flock together, pares cum paribus. The eagle will not join herself with a sparrow, neither is it fit for an ass to associate with a lion. They seldom join without confusion, which is commonly the event of such unequal matches, being begun with the discord of parents, and end for the most part in the dissension of parties.”19

Scudder did not have “inter-racial” marriage per se, in view, because it did not exist in his time. However, he did have regard to the parents which does relate to inter-racial marriage. If Scudder saw the wisdom in marrying children who had similar parents in less unequal things (education, social status, rank, etc.), what would he have thought about children marrying who had parents in greater unequal things like race and ethnicity? The answer is obvious.

Also, it is an indication of how blind the modern evangelical and reformed church is to this issue that Dr. Joel Beeke would omit this part of Scudder’s work in his book, Living in a Godly Marriage.20 He cites Scudder’s work 16 times. Yet, when he comes to the fitness or suitableness of the spouse, he diverts from Scudder’s paradigm (age, parentage, estate, constitution and disposition) to another Puritan who doesn’t mention “parentage.” Do you blame him? After all, he needs to sell books and these things are just not acceptable today.

One reason why I have already discussed the issues of race and racial differences is so that my reader can understand my points here.21 Generally speaking, Whites are smarter than Blacks. Why would you want your children to be less intelligent or likely to be less intelligent? Generally speaking, Blacks have a propensity for violence. Why would you want, especially your daughters, to be more subject to it? And why would you want your grandchild to be more susceptible to it?22 Today, it is a sin to “notice” such things. But we must repent of false sins. Instead, it is “imprudent” not to notice such things. There are also many other differences between Whites and Blacks, not to mention the other races (physical features, culture, vices and virtues, language, heritage, etc) that also should be considered.

In my opinion, the natural inclination of a White woman (Christian or not) is to marry another White man. This is one reason why intra-racial marriage is still more common than inter-racial marriage. These natural differences are real and believers and unbelievers alike, naturally incline toward their own people. But today young people (especially White women) are encouraged by their pastors and friends to put off their “racist past” and accept Marxist egalitarianism. This is wicked and shameful and needs to stop immediately.

(D) When an inter-racial marriage violates the “male headship” principle.

The Scriptures teach that the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the Church. Eph 5:22-24:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Notice the last phrase, “… in every thing.” It is not enough for a foreign man to marry a White American woman and lead her spiritually. He must lead her culturally and socially. However, what happens when a White woman marries a man from Tanzania or the middle east? Even if that man is a strong Christian, she will be the leader of the family culturally and socially. Assimilation is required for all foreigners. They must leave their culture, language and customs and adopt American ways. Who is going to lead this transformation? This is most obvious in the cases wherein foreigners come to America and find a wife within 1-2 years (and not in the 3^rd generation as stipulated in Deut 23:7-8). How much cultural assimilation really takes place? Some foreigners assimilate more than others, and I do not want to deny this genuine effort on the part of some. However, in Scripture assimilation took 3 generations (Deut 23:7-8). Besides, even from the perspective of experience, when a White woman marries a foreign man, she becomes the leader in culture and in social settings. She is the one that leads. Of course, in our day, feminism is the norm. Thus, most Christians do not recognize this to be a problem. Though I do not encourage foreign men to marry American women, once married, it would be more respectable for those foreign men to take his White American wife back to his homeland. In his homeland, she will follow him, “… in every thing.”

(E) When an inter-racial marriage violates the “leave and cleave” principle.

Gen 2:24 states, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” In this text we read of the man leaving his parents and finding a wife and forming a new home. Although the text speaks of the man leaving and cleaving to his wife, it has become common for Christians to understand that it is the wife that is especially to leave her family and cleave to her new husband. This is the case because we know that the man is the one who leads and provides for the family. It is a matter of principle that the wife takes on the name of her husband and forms a new family. Family ties still exist, and young married couples must still honor their parents according to the 5^th commandment. However, the new marriage is formed, and the young man is the head of that home. It is the duty of the woman to leave her house and be under the authority and in the home of her new husband.

Psalm 45:10 speaks to this point. Although the Psalm is rightly understood to be allegorical and best applies to Christ and His bride (the Church), the illustration carries no weight without the analogy to a normal marriage. “Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house…” The woman is to leave her father’s house and join to her husband.

But what do we see happening today and especially regarding inter-racial marriage? A foreign man comes to America, finds a gullible White woman who hates “racism” and marries her. Then he stays here in the wife’s native home and place.

Some object and say, “This is not fair! The foreigner can provide for his new wife and make his own home here in the USA.” The problem with this is that it assumes an unbiblical and Marxist view of immigration and naturalization. This is why I have already covered these topics.23 They greatly impact how we view inter-racial marriage today. It is not biblical for foreigners to come to America and immediately join the state. It is an unbiblical view of nation and race. Christian parents who allow their White daughters to marry foreigners (even Christian ones) are especially supporting unbiblical ideology and, although unknowingly in most cases, are violating biblical principles. Why would you want to promote Marxist egalitarian theories by marrying your White daughter to a foreigner?

2 - Circumstances wherein inter-racial marriage violates Christian prudence

Again, inter-racial marriage is not a sin per se. We need to know the circumstances in which God allows it (as I have discussed). However, even in the cases wherein I have mentioned, there are good reasons not to do it based on prudence (or expediency). 1 Cor 10:23 says, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” The question is not always, “Is it lawful?” But, instead, “Is it prudent?”

I am encouraged when I do hear pastors mention this principle. Many pastors, to be fair, will at least say that an “inter-cultural” marriage can be imprudent. By “inter-cultural” they really mean “inter-racial.” Rev. Beers is a good example. In his sermon on inter-racial marriage, he concedes a very important point.

“You’re going to want to ask questions that deal with your compatibility because you want to be wise. So where there are large cultural differences: for example, in terms of language you’re going to sit down and you’re going to consider it. Everything that goes with isolation of language and the development of particular cultures and ideas and worldviews and expectations. And the greater the cultural differences, the greater the potential problems.”24

The problem with his statements is that it underplays the imprudence of inter-racial marriage. It is not just inter-cultural, but “inter-racial.” Besides, pastors and parents need to truly grasp the impact language and culture (and other factors) will have on the marriage. Pastors and parents need to remember two things. First, “Neither, in truth, is there anything wherein persons more need and less use reason, and true discretion, than in their marriage choice…”25 Passion and covetousness often drive the young lovebirds along without due consideration. Second, they must remember, “…how much mischief may be done by their indiscretion, ministers should raise imprudence in marriages to the rank of a great sin.”26 Let us, therefore, consider a few aspects of potential imprudence in an inter-racial marriage.

(A) Communication

Is it not the experience of honest married people that fights can arise from the most mundane points of difference? How will this not be accelerated with people of different native tongues?

Witherspoon brings out the importance of communication and attributes a lack of communication, in part, to people who marry unequally. “This, then, is what I apprehend occasions the importance of equality in rank. Without this equality they do not understand one another sufficiently for continual intercourse.”27 He notices this point regarding people of different rank (social status and education). But how much more when they do not speak the same native language?

Those who are unequal in native tongue find many obstacles to overcome and miscommunicate even when striving to the contrary. Yet, when two White people from the same city, who have the same friends, and culture, marry, they (all else being equal) will not have as much difficulty in communication. In an inter-racial marriage, there is a spectrum. Some marry those who are fluent in English. But because it is not their native tongue, a communication gap still exists to some degree—especially in colloquial expressions. There is something unique about the native tongue. We dream and think in that language and nuance is key in marriage communications.

In a normal marriage between people of the same race, ethnicity and language, they soon develop a close knowledge of each other. Married couples know each other well and can anticipate how they will react. In such marriages, spouses can almost “read the mind” of their spouse by just looking at their face. Yet, in an inter-racial marriage, this is much harder to develop. I understand it can still happen, but it will take more time and effort and, in some cases, may never be the same as a normal intra-racial marriage. Miscommunication, which is so important especially early in marriage, has the tendency to multiply. It can be a real hinderance to intimacy and love. Can it be overcome? Yes, but why make marriage harder? In the yearly stages of dating, the “newness” of the foreigner is interesting. It is seen as an adventure and comes with approval of the liberal world. But when you move into the same house—reality hits home. These people will have real hinderances in their marriage that cannot easily be overcome and that would otherwise not exist if they had married within their own race and ethnicity. And this is just added already to the specific sins and weaknesses of each spouse and the problems that normally arise from miscommunication even with those of the same race. It is a factor that, granted, may not disqualify the marriage, but needs to be seriously taken into consideration.

(B) Distance

It is hard to quantify this point, but it is important. It depends on the people involved, but an inter-racial marriage with a foreigner will necessarily carry with it the problem of distance. The grandparents are separated from the grandchildren and their own married child. There is no sense of familiarity and closeness with extended family in such marriages. The “free babysitters” are not 15 minutes down the road (at least not for both sets of grandparents). And even if the foreign grandparents move, should they be allowed to immigrate? And what about the other relatives? Are they participating in the Marxist egalitarian policy of “chain migration”?

Consider this idea more. The aunts and uncles and cousins of the foreigner live in a far-away land (more or less). Family events with grandparents and relatives will only exist once a year—in most cases. Flights are necessary to visit family in the other country. Monetary costs arise. The often neglected “family reunion” is non-existent. And if it does occur, because of a yearly trip to the homeland, the kids learn a different culture and become confused on their identity. Am I an American or Tanzanian? Am I an American or Dominican?

For those who marry according in the normal pattern, they have all the benefits of natural affection, heritage and lineage. The grandparents, the uncles, the cousins, are just like them in race and culture (i.e. they are Americans). They share in the heritage of the broader family and grow stronger by their influence—especially if they are Christians. But this does not happen when an American marries a foreigner. The foreign spouse becomes like Ruth. They leave their family behind and a loss occurs. The “roots” of the family tree only go down in one direction.

(C) Offspring

Nobody likes to talk about the reality and impact of being of a mixed race. But naturally, the offspring of an inter-racial marriage will produce a mixed race. What is it like being both White and something else?

In some cases, the differences are less noticeable. A White man and an Asian woman produce offspring that are more similar. A White person and half-Mexican will be even less noticeable. But most of the time, the differences are striking—especially in the case of a White and Black marriage. In my experience, a White-Black marriage produces a Black offspring that returns to the Black community in most cases. The traits of the Black gene carry dominance, and the child identifies as Black (especially in a world where a person of color has an advantage—DEI, etc.). And this has been the opinion of many Americans in history.

Chief Justice Warren, who served as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969, said this about children of mixed ancestry:

“Children in such a situation are burdened, as has been said in another connection, with a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…”28

Some will argue that his concern is no longer well founded because inter-racial marriage is more common today. However, it is still, even today, a reality. Most people are not mixed. The offspring will grow up with a confused identity—to some degree.

Some might ask, “What is wrong with being mixed?” A mixed offspring is not “wrong” per se, but it creates unnecessary problems—and that is my point. I am referring to what is “imprudent” not sinful per se.

First, the offspring of an inter-racial marriage are forced into an inter-racial marriage themselves de facto. They automatically are at a disadvantage in finding a future spouse. People, whether they will admit it or not, naturally prefer to marry within their own race or ethnicity. A mixed race person grows up not knowing why he has a hard time finding a mate. He gets the frequent response by potential suiters “It will just not work out” or his friend tells him, “She is just not interested in you.” But the hidden reason is that potential spouse is just not attracted to a half-Black or half-Latino etc.

Second, there is a potential of bias in the family. The children will often identify with the race or ethnicity of one of the parents, thus putting down the other parent. If the child favors the race and culture of their father, that is understandable and preferred, but what about when the mother is White and she leads the family culturally? How does that make the foreign father feel? These things take time to develop and are not as easily recognized during courtship, but they are real.

Third, natural affection is diminished. Yes, the offspring of an inter-racial marriage will still take on aspects of both parents. But, at the same time, experience teaches us that the offspring resembles neither of their parents. In the case of a Black and White marriage, the offspring is seen as Black. The White parent loses that blond hair gene, the blue eye gene, the freckles (most of the time) or red hair. They lose the nose and jaw structure of White people (usually). It is a point often overlooked that parents are filled with natural affection for their kids because they look and act much like them (or even the grandparents). How many times has a parent’s anger towards a fussy child cooled because they literally see themselves when they look at their kids? How many times has a father held their 1-year-old smiling boy in the air and noticed their similarity, and the pains of his current work situation evaporate? These are precious natural blessings. Why would we weaken them?

We need the grace of God and the work of the Holy Spirit to truly love our children, but natural affection is a help and should not be downplayed. It is God’s way because it is God’s nature. Yet, again, in an inter-racial marriage these “looks” are largely taken away. And we must not forget the traits and looks of grandparents. It is striking how often certain grandchildren look like their grandparents. This does not happen in an inter-racial marriage. The White grandparents hold their mixed child and, although they love him and cherish him, they know that something is missing. Something has been “stolen” from them—the natural affection that results from marrying within one’s own race.

The features of Asian people, with their wide eyes and characteristic noses, are almost always dominant in mixed marriages. So, for the common White male/Asian female marriage in America, those common White traits are gone. They grow up looking much like their Asian mother. The White father has a sense of foreignness when he holds his own child. There is a loss of something that would otherwise be there. It distorts natural affection and lessens the bonds that God has normally established to strengthen ties between parents and their offspring. It needs to be considered more fully and is a reason why one should not want to marry across his own race.29

My point here is based on experience and nature. Therefore, I do not hesitate to use the following quote from Muhammad Ali. Although without the light of Scripture, he still understood this point better than most. Below is a quote from an interview he made back in 1971. He probably never said a truer statement.

“… I want my child to look like me. Every intelligent person wants his child to look like him. I’m sad because I want to blot out my race and lose my beautiful identity? Chinese love Chinese. They love the little slanted-eye, pretty brown-skinned babies… Who want[s] to spot up yourself and kill your race? You a hater of your people if you don’t want to stay who you are. You shame what God made you. God didn’t make no mistake when he made us all like we were... It’s just nature. You can do what you want, but it’s nature to want to be with your own. I want to be with my own. I love my people. That’s all. I don’t hate nobody.”30

(D) Culture

I define culture as a set of behavioral norms accepted by a given society. Culture touches many things: expectations, customs, holidays, manners, preferences, food, hobbies, etc. How does this relate to inter-racial marriage? When cultures clash, it can create unnecessary problems and obstacles to peace and unity.

Witherspoon said, “It has often been said that dissensions between married people, generally take their rise from very inconsiderable circumstances…”31 Bringing two sinners together is hard enough to imprudently add further issues that arise from an inter-racial marriage.

Consider how difficult it would be to be married to a person from a different culture. There are different expectations, customs, holidays, manners, preferences, food, hobbies, etc. Yet, what is normal? Normally people marry folks near to them in blood, geography and culture. They have the same ancestry (generally), land ties, customs, holidays, food preferences, etc. These things tie them together and become a source of mutual enjoyment. They grow in natural affection because they have married someone like them.

Yet, in an inter-racial marriage, there are many obstacles and hurdles that would otherwise not exist. They find out the hard way in the years to come that some things are just hard to change. Should they expect their spouse to conform to their ways? Should the American husband really expect his foreign wife to give up her preferences and culture completely? Yes, she should assimilate, but how much? Even if she does, it will take time. A sense of “foreignness” and “homelessness” emerges, even in the intimate confines of the living room and bedroom. What pictures are we going to put on the wall? What family traditions are we going to have? What are we going to call the grandparents? It is almost endless.

Even within the context of an intra-racial marriage, James wrote, “A difference of taste in minor matters is an impediment in the way of domestic comfort…”32 We do not need marriage to be any harder. Sinful people make it hard enough. We don’t need to add “foreignness” to the equation.

Not all inter-racial marriage is as equally “foreign” or imprudent. The degree of difference makes it the more imprudent. A good example of this concept is the issue of marrying someone close in age. Who will say that a 50-year-old man is sinning if he marries a 28-year-old woman? Yet, it will cause some problems and may prove imprudent and therefore sinful. In the same way, the greater the racial difference, the greater the problems one will face and the greater the imprudence.

Asian intelligence is similar to that of Whites, whereas Blacks are normally not as intelligent as Whites. Latinos are often largely mixed with Spaniard blood (White European) and, in some cases, are thus more like other Europeans. And then you have the cases of people who are already half-White. I have no problem recognizing that some inter-racial or inter-ethnic marriages are not as imprudent or unequal. But it still can be unwise for an American to marry a Canadian, though the disparity is not as much as marring someone from Tanzania.

3 - The circumstances of today’s inter-racial marriage in the light of US history.

Introduction

The history of inter-racial marriage in the USA is enlightening for the serious and discerning Christian. It is a history of liberal activism that overturned the sentiments of a predominantly conservative and Bible-believing and God-fearing people. Today, inter-racial marriage may seem to be “next level” Christianity. It may come with perks and the approval of society. But in the past, it was a progressive and godless attack on a predominantly God-fearing people.

History, however, is not the basis of truth. God’s word is the basis. And yet, no treatment of inter-racial marriage is complete without a glance to its history. How has inter-racial marriage been seen in the past? Who was in favor of changing it? Why? What were the circumstances? And how should that influence the way Christian American see it today?

I will divide this section of the article into three parts. First, a very brief snapshot of the US laws governing inter-racial marriage (also known as anti-miscegenation laws) and when they were changed. Secondly, I will specify the ungodly parties who promoted inter-racial marriage. Third, I will finish with some useful quotes from the past.

(A) A brief snapshot of inter-racial marriage in the USA

The American people, both in the civil and ecclesiastical realms, were overwhelmingly opposed to inter-racial marriage from the beginning of the founding of the colonies until the 1940s. Then, until the 1960s, anti-mscegenation laws remained in many states. One liberal historian wrote:

“The anti-miscegenation regime—a racial regime specifically targeting matters of marriage—lasted from the 1660s to the 1960s. It grew with the nation and once covered much of the North American continent.”33

Although there were some states/colonies that did not make it illegal, the overwhelming majority of the states did codify anti-miscegenation laws into their colonial or state constitutions. The laws varied in degree of punishment and in what it considered “inter-racial.” Yet, the consensus was clear. The law of Virginia, in 1691, provides a good sample of the colonial period:

“For prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white woman, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another…” Law of Virginia 169134

North Carolina adopted a similar law in 1741:

“For Prevention of that abominable Mixture and spurious issue, which hereafter may increase in this Government, by white Men and women intermarrying with Indians, Negroes, Mustees [people of mixed ancestry, usually quadroons or octoroons], or Mulattoes, Be it enacted... That if any white Man or Woman, being free shall intermarry with an Indian, Negro, Mustee or Mulatto man or woman, or any Person of Mixed Blood, to the Third Generation, bond or free, he shall, by Judgment of the County Court, forfeit and pay the sum of Fifty Pounds, Proclamation Money, for the use of the Parish.”35

The federal government did not get involved with marriage law at a practical level. From the founding of the colonies up until the decisive case of Loving v. Virginia (1967), “The United States had no national law of marriage, and thus every marriage took place under the particular laws of an individual state.”36

One liberal historian summarized the legal history of this issue in the USA below:

“Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws dated from 1691, though the first recorded in the New World was Maryland’s thirty years earlier. In the following two hundred years many of the American colonies and states of the union passed such statutes, invariably directed at black-white mixing and often other combinations as well: Malayans, American Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Ethiopians, Hindus, and so forth. Thirty-eight of the states had anti-miscegenation laws at one time or another. During the years of the Civil War the number of laws dwindled, except in the South where they remained intact. By the end of the Second World War, thirty-one states had such statutes. By the year of the Loving case, fifteen of these had repealed or voided their laws. The remaining states were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.”37

In other words, inter-racial marriage was either: socially unacceptable or strictly forbidden before the Civil War. After the Civil War, it did start to occur, but even then, was unpopular and even illegal, not just in the Southern states, but also in Northern states. It remained a majority position until World War II.

38

In fact, in 1912, there was a proposed amendment to the US Constitution to outlaw it,

“Intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States… is forever prohibited, and the term negroes or persons of color… shall be held to mean any and all persons… having any trace of African blood.”39

This amendment was proposed by Seaborn Roddenbery, a US Representative from the state of Georgia. Although it was not passed, it does show that there was a strong consensus against the amalgamation of the races at that time. After WWII, it was the Southern states (and those bordering it) who retained their anti-miscegenation laws.

But with the Civil Rights movement and liberal activism in the courts, that soon changed. In the landmark 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court decided unanimously on June 12 under Chief Justice Earl Warren to functionally make void the laws of the remaining states.

Richard Loving was a white construction worker from Central Point, Virginia. He wanted to marry Mildred Jeter (of African American and Native American descent). Despite Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 banning interracial unions, they traveled to Washington, D.C., and wed on June 2, 1958. Police arrested them on July 11, 1958, for violating the state’s anti-miscegenation law. They pleaded guilty and received a one-year prison sentence suspended on condition they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years.

40

“Exiled” to Washington, D.C., where they raised three children with relatives, the couple desired to return home. In 1963, inspired by the growing civil rights movement, Mildred wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for help, and accepted the help of the ACLU. Jewish lawyers, Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop, filed a motion to “vacate” the judgment in 1964, sparking a legal battle that progressed through Virginia courts (which upheld the ban) until the U.S. Supreme Court granted their desire to be heard.

The Court’s ruling determined that the various state laws which banned interracial marriage were unconstitutional violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The ruling invalidated Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924 and similar anti-miscegenation statutes in 15 other states, mostly in the South. The supreme court held that race-based restrictions lacked any legitimate purpose beyond racial discrimination and infringed on personal liberty. The decision effectively legalized interracial marriage nationwide and overturned prior precedents like Pace v. Alabama (1883). Furthermore, it ended nearly three centuries of such prohibitions in parts of the U.S. and established that the freedom to marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

41

(B) The ungodly parties who promoted inter-racial marriage

Christians who today either promote inter-racial marriage or understand it to be inconsequential will find it embarrassing to learn who the people and parties were that pushed such activism in US history. Were they the godly and well-respected Evangelical ministers and Christians? Did it arise from a revival of religion in America and reformation in theology? Or did it come from another, more sinister corner? I will mention a few facts.

First, the churches, or religious groups, that promoted it were either liberal or non-Christian. The northern unitarian “minister”, Farley W. Wheelwright, said in 1962, “Eventually, … interracial marriages will become as acceptable as interfaith marriages are today.”42 The liberal United Presbyterian Church, at their national conference, “approved a resolution asserting the absence of theological ground for opposition to interracial marriage and the duty of church members to work for the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws.”43 The Disciples of Christ,44 Jehovah Witnesses,45 and Universalists46 all joined in like manner.

Second, the liberal NAACP and ACLU were the driving forces behind such legal activism. It is true that the NAACP was not leading at first. Earlier on in American history and even in the early years of the 20^th century, many Blacks did not necessarily want to marry White people because they were more concerned about voting rights.47 However, the NAACP became more heavily involved, especially in the Loving v. Virginia case.

Third, it is very conspicuous that Jewish lawyers were specifically behind the legal actions of Loving v. Virginia. These were not Christian lawyers of upright character fighting for Christ’s rights in the nation. Instead, they were Jews—Bernard Cohen and Philip Hirschkop. Furthermore, in the Naim v. Naim case, David Carliner, who represented Han Say Naim (the appellant), was also Jewish.48

Fourth, it does not help the “Christian” anti-Racist party that ungodly celebrities were big proponents of inter-racial marriage.

“War bride marriages got a lot of play in the Black press in the late 1940s and the 1950s. But most of the mixed marriage space in such new publications as Ebony and Negro Digest went to celebrities… The intermarriages of singers Lena Horne, Billy Daniels, Anne Brown, Pearl Bailey, and Harry Belafonte; dancers Katherine Dunham and Sammy Davis, Jr.; editor George Schuyler; and novelist Richard Wright all rated major stories in Ebony in the period in question. Writers were always careful to note the accomplishments of both partners to such marriages, and seemed positively to glory in the pedigrees of the White spouses. Urban League executive Frank Montero’s 1951 bride was “blonde steel heiress Ann Mather of Boston’s exclusive Beacon Hill,” said Ebony, a “31-year old Smith graduate [who] traces family back to Pilgrims.’” 49

“Jack Johnson, the Black heavyweight boxing champion, had a string of White wives and mistresses, much to the anger of many Whites.”50

Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney would promote it, in 1982, in the hit record, “The Girl is Mine.”51 Three years later, Playboy magazine would promote it in their wicked pornographic magazine.52 Some Christians might mock this as an appropriate example, but they must consider, “If inter-racial marriage is to be promoted by Christians, why would the wicked celebrate it in a porn magazine?”

Furthermore, one of the liberal authors that I have referenced was quick to point out that the same legal argumentation could be applied to homosexual marriages as was applied to the case of Loving v. Virginia. In this case, the inter-racial marriage activism is directly connected to the wickedness of gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)

“There is some pressure now on all levels of government in the United States to grant rights to homosexuals equal to those of heterosexuals, including the removal of laws punishing homosexual relations between consenting adults. At the moment there is a wealth of legal precedent on equal rights, mainly concerning blacks, that could be put to this purpose by the courts. The taboo against homosexuality… is as strong as any in the culture and stronger even than the fear of miscegenation. For the Supreme Court to implant a homosexual bill of rights in the Fourteenth Amendment, though a logical extension of honored principles, is unlikely today. It is low on legal priority lists, to say the least. But perhaps in 1975 and again in 1980 the Court will turn aside cases raising the issues, decide a secondary issue in 1985, and then, when the legal aspects of homosexuality are no longer controversial-let us say in 1990-it will hand down a ruling for homosexuals as comprehensive, and as quietly received, as Loving.”53

“As homosexual couples apply for licenses and force courts to consider their demands, conflicting rulings are certain to put pressure on the federal courts to apply the rationale of Loving.”54

This liberal author has a logical point. If Loving v. Virginia established that the freedom to marry a person of another race “resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State,” then why not grant that same right to consenting adults of the same sex? This man, who wrote in 1972, predicted exactly what did happen. The Supreme Court case that struck down bans on same-sex marriage nationwide was Obergefell v. Hodges. This case was decided on June 26, 2015. In a 5–4 ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses guarantee the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples.

Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges relied, therefore, on fundamentally the same core legal arguments under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both struck down state bans on marriage as violations of the Due Process Clause (protecting the fundamental right to marry as a liberty interest central to personal autonomy, dignity, and intimate choices) and the Equal Protection Clause (prohibiting arbitrary discrimination based on race in Loving and sexual orientation/gender in Obergefell).

One may challenge my connections between the two and a couple in an inter-racial marriage may object to homosexual marriage. However, the history of these issues is connected. They have the same wicked liberals and the same legal logic. This is not a good “historical” circumstance and, therefore, it should cause the serious Christian to doubt the virtue of inter-racial marriage in the US today.

(C) Quotes from the Past:

1. Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) 16th President of the United States:

“Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing of blood by the white and black races: agreed for once—a thousand times agreed.”55

“… I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”56

2. Booker T. Washington (1856–1915) leading African American educator, and author.

“I have never looked upon amalgamation as offering a solution to the so-called race problem and I know very few Negroes who favor it or even think of it for that matter… In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual economic progress.”57

3. Senator Theodore Bilbo (1877–1947) a prominent Mississippi Democrat who served as U.S. Senator:

“We are today standing at the crossroads, and there are but two roads ahead. Separation leads to the preservation of both the white and Negro races, to a future which belongs to God. Mongrelization leads to the destruction of our Nation itself. Take your choice-separation or mongrelization. The America of tomorrow-white or mongrel? Let us pray that Almighty God will guide our feet upon a road to a white America which will continue to lead the world in civilization and culture.”58

4. Judge Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967) a Roman Catholic Virginia lawyer, state legislator, and judge who served as judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit involved in Loving v. Virginia.

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents… The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”59

5. Harry Truman (1884–1972) 33rd President of the United States:

“I don’t believe in it. What’s that word about four feet long? Miscegenation?” Truman, well known for his bluntness, redirected the question. “Would you want your daughter to marry a Negro?” The reporter replied that he’d want her to marry “the man she loved.” Truman, not satisfied with this response, snapped, “Well, she won’t love someone who isn’t her color,” and then he explained, “You’ll edit the man she goes out with. I did, and mine married the right man.”60

6. Bob Jones Jr. (1911–1997) American evangelist, educator, and 2nd President of Bob Jones University:

“The cry today is ‘One World, One Race, One Church,’ but it will be a corrupt and evil world, a mongrel race, and the church of the Antichrist. Inter-marriage of the races is a breakdown of the lines of separation which God has set up and, therefore, is rebellion against God.”61

Conclusion

Inter-racial marriage is not a sin per se, but it can be, and often is today. Christians today truncate all prohibitions on marriage to simply “only in the Lord” and ignore other biblical and wise principles. Furthermore, the history of inter-racial marriage in the USA is a history associated with liberal, ungodly and even Jewish influence. Christians, especially pastors, need to apply a more thorough understanding of Scripture when considering potential marriage partners that would be best, both for the couple, the extended family, and the nation wherein they live.

In this series of articles, I have addressed preliminary matters of race, the doctrine of race itself and, with this article, concluded the implications race has on a particular nation (immigration, naturalization and marriage). I will turn to more specific applications of these principles in my next article.

The previous article expounded the biblical law for the naturalization of a foreigner into a country. But before we can make more specific applications to our current situation in America, we need to understand that situation. We need to understand where we once were as a nation, and where we are now, and how we got to our current mess. In any application of Scripture, it is not enough just to know what the Scripture says. We must also know ourselves and our situation to best apply those biblical laws.

In this article, I will do two basic things. First, I will give a summary of events based upon key moments in US immigration history. Second, I will debunk two myths regarding immigration in America.

In this article, I will leave out the story of some ethnicities. My history is not meant to be utterly comprehensive but representative of the overall picture. I lean heavily upon the work of the Jewish liberal Roger Daniels Coming to America1 but also on Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People.2 I will henceforth cite these books by their author’s last name and page number.

If this article has any special merit, it will be in the succinctness wherein I tell the story while remaining accurate to the facts, not my own wishes.

Part 1 – US Immigration History

English and Protestant (1600s – 1815)

The American colonies were dominated by Englishmen. France and Spain had early settlements in America, but they did not flourish. Over the course of several battles, their colonization had very little impact on the formation of the United States of America. The 1790 census demonstrates this English domination objectively through the following percentages by ethnicity: 77.7% English,3 8.6% German, 3.1% Dutch, 2.3% French, 0.7% Swedish, 0.8% Spanish and 6.8% unassigned. Of note: 64% of all the French were in French Territory or NW territory. All the Spanish were in Spanish Southwest territory. The African slaves were almost 1/5 of the total population but were not counted in the percentage (Daniels, 68). Daniels reports that the “unassigned” 6.8% were White but could not be assigned a specific ethnicity by scholars (Daniels, 66). “It [all the American colonies] was overwhelmingly English” (Johnson, 64) and in early Puritan New England, “virtually everyone came from England and Wales” (Johnson, 55).

“The fact of the matter is that by the time of the first census in 1790, just over three-fifths of the white population was calculated to have been of English stock, and more than two-fifths of the rest came from the British Isles. Put another way, continental European stock accounted for a little more than one white person in seven…” (Daniels, 66)

Regarding the African slaves, “Large-scale slavery was an 18th century phenomenon. Even by 1714, there were fewer than 60,000 slaves in the whole of the English colonies on mainland America. Thereafter the numbers grew steadily, 78,000 by 1727, 263,000 by 1754, and 697,000 at the first census in 1790” (Johnson, 74). Thus, in 1790, the Black slave population was almost 20% of the total (Daniels, 31).

The 1790 Naturalization Act allowed only “a free white person” who had lived for 2 years to be naturalized in any American court.4 This law was upheld for many years. As just one example, the Chinese itinerant workers that came during the gold rush were unable to be citizens until 1943 (Daniels, 245). It was not until the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act that racial and ethnic principles, as a principle, would be removed from the US laws of naturalization (Daniels, 329). The one exception of this racial exclusion would be the 1898 Supreme Court Case United States v. Wong Kim Ark which gave citizenship to the children of Chinese itinerant workers born in the USA5 and this was based on the 14^th Amendment which came in 1868 because of the Civil War. The 1790 Naturalization Act, therefore, ensured for many years that American citizens would be of one race—White. This was the law regarding naturalization. It would not change until the 14^th Amendment (1868) which naturalized all the former African slaves as US Citizens after the Civil War. Even after the Civil War, immigration law functionally limited naturalization to Whites for much longer.

America was founded by Whites not only de facto but also de jure. Therefore, Christians today in America need to understand that if they refuse White Nationalism and adopt the egalitarian spirit of the day, they must condemn their forefathers as “racist” sinners. They must also acknowledge that today’s American church, despite her weak, polluted and divided condition, has come to a better knowledge of Scripture than the Puritan and Protestant forefathers who founded this country.

But the American colonies were not only dominated by Englishmen, they were also dominated by Protestants. It was a country “gone protestant” (Daniels, 42). There were anti-Catholic laws in every colony (Daniels, 109). Other religions were also outlawed. For example, in the early years of Maryland, there was no toleration of Jews or atheists (Johnson, 60). In 1790, there were “perhaps” 2,000 Jews in the colonies, but there was no Rabbi until 1840 (Daniels, 98).6 Referring to the 1790 Census chart, “…Almost all the Irish in the chart were Protestants, as were all but a very few European immigrants in the Colonial Era” (Daniels, 69). In 1796, George Washington said in his famous Farewell address, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.”7 Some will point out that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were not Christians, but deists. This is true, but it does not take away the testimony of all the other founders and the census of the nation. All 13 original colonies were or would eventually establish the Protestant faith as the religion of the colony.8

Some would argue that Roman Catholics also helped establish the nation. It is undeniable that there were Roman Catholics in the early years—but very few. It is also true that Maryland began as a Roman Catholic colony (1634-1650) founded by the Calvert family. But it would not continue as such. It would later become associated with Puritans and in 1692, the church of England was established, and the capital of the colony was moved to Protestant Annapolis. By 1715, the Baltimore family had converted to Anglicanism (Daniels, 43). There was only one Roman Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence—Charles Carrol (Daniels, 86).

“… John Carroll, the first American Catholic bishop, called [them] ‘name only Catholics’ since, in 1783 there were only 25,000 Catholic communicants in the whole country; many others had drifted into Protestant denominations because there were relatively few Catholic churches and priests anywhere in America” (Daniels, 86).

Thus, America was English and Protestant in its earliest years. This was true up until 1815. After 1815, Europeans saw America as more stable and continental Europeans became more eager to cross the Atlantic. Until 1815, Britain was reluctant to acknowledge America as a nation and would not promote sending “settlers” for the West. It was not until after the victory of the War of 1812 and Andrew Jackson’s successful wars against the Indians (and British) that more immigrants desired to come and that Britain acknowledged the USA as a nation. Thus, in 1815, with various horrible circumstances in Europe, and the Louisiana Purchase, and with certain lands just east of the Mississippi secured from the Creek Indian nations, more settlers started to come in larger numbers. These new settlers were predominantly Roman Catholic.

The American Ethnicity (1730-1790)

But before we look at the rise of catholic immigration to America and the settling of the west, the idea of an American ethnicity needs to be established. It is important to speak about the American ethnicity. In 1783, John Jay, a founding father, asserted:

“Providence [had] been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs” (Daniels, 108).

Early on, there was an assimilation of the Dutch, German and French Protestants into the English language and culture. Each of these three had key people involved in the forging of the American nation. The Huguenots (French Protestants) are an example of what was common among all three.

“South Carolina Huguenots began very quickly to assimilate within this newly evolving society … by mid-century these Huguenots simply were South Carolinians; aside from their surnames they were indistinguishable from all other settlers in the colony ...” (Daniels, 94).

The Great Awakening of the 1730s and the American Revolution of the 1770s forged the people into its own identity separate from England.

“The Great Awakening was thus the proto-revolutionary event, the formative moment in American history, preceding the political drive for independence and making it possible… it gave a distinctive American flavor to a wide range of denominations… The Revolution could not have taken place without this religious background” (Johnson, 116-117).

Thus, there developed a religious consciousness among all the mainline denominations which was distinct from their European and British counterparts. The result was a birth of a nation and of a new people—the Americans.

White and Christian (1815-1924)

We return to the story of immigration in America and the rise of Catholic Americans.9 With the Treaty of Ghent signed in 1814, the victorious battles of Andrew Jackson against the remaining American Indians, and the Louisiana Purchase from France already established (1803), the West was open, and new settlers began pouring in. Conditions in Europe also greatly contributed to this migration. The defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo (1815) and various famines in Europe, made new lands in America even more attractive to various European settlers. It was also easy to immigrate because the US government demanded no paperwork at that time and the cost of travel was fairly cheap. Johnson provides a helpful summary of the immigration during this period:

“From 1815 to the start of the Civil War, over 5 million people moved from Europe to the United States, about 50 percent from England, 40 percent from Ireland, and the rest from Continental Europe. Between the end of the Civil war and 1890, another 10 million arrived, mostly from northwest Europe, especially England, Wales, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia. Then, in the twenty-four years 1890 to 1914, another 15 million came, mostly from eastern and southern Europe – Poles, Russian Jews, Ukrainians, Slovaks, Croatians, Slovenes, Hungarians, Greek, Rumanians, and Italians… the Naturalization Acts, going back to 1790, had always denied entry and residence to non-whites” (Johnson, 513-514).

The makeup of this immigration was first, from northern and western Europe, but then expanded to eastern and southern Europe in later decades. 4.5 million Irish (mainly Roman Catholics) immigrated from 1820-1924 (Daniels, 128-129). There was significant anti-Catholic sentiment across the country due largely to the Irish Catholics. One ad in the New York Post in 1830 read, “Wanted. A Cook or Chambermaid … must be American, Scotch, Swiss or African—no Irish” (Daniels, 131). This Irish immigration transformed the Catholic church in the US.

“The twenty-five thousand Catholics of 1790 had probably grown to about 100,000 by the end of the War of 1812. By 1860, there were 3.5 million, and Catholics were the largest single denomination in the United States, although still a small minority of the population” (Daniels, 138).

Germans were 25% of the immigrants from 1830-1880 (Daniels, 145-146). They populated Texas and various cities (especially New York and Milwaukee). One-third were Catholics, but most were Lutherans. These Lutheran German immigrants would establish what is now known as the Missouri Synod (Daniels, 152-153). Over 4 million Scandinavians also immigrated from the years 1820-1920 and were almost “totally protestant” (Daniels, 164-165).

After 1880, immigrants increasingly came from the southern and eastern regions of Europe (Daniels, 188). 4.1 million Italians came from 1880 to 1920. “No other ethnic group in American history sent so many immigrants in such a short time” (Daniels, 188). The Italians were Catholic (Daniels, 197). There was no significant Greek immigration before 1890 (Daniels, 202). In 1920, there were 184,000 and they were predominantly Greek Orthodox (Daniels, 202-204). There were 100,000 Arab immigrants before World War II, but they were Lebanese Christians (Daniels, 206). The first Muslim mosques (just 2) were built in 1934 (Daniels, 209).10 There were 100,000 Armenians who came from 1880-1924, largely settling in Fresno (Daniels, 210).11

By 1910, the amount of immigration from the southern and eastern regions of Europe can best be summarized by the following statistics. The number of foreign-born and their next generation (not foreign-born) which spoke a foreign language are listed by four main areas: Russia—4.16 million, Austria—3.2 million, Germany—10.93 million, and Hungary—12.1 million (Daniels, 217-218). Many of these people were Catholics and some were Jews. New York City was a prominent place for the Jews to live. French Canadians also came and were entirely Catholic and very despised by the host populace (Daniels, 258). By 1920, there were 848,309 French Canadians living in the US (Daniels, 259). The remnants of French settlements near New Orleans also contributed to a French Catholic presence in America.

1901-1910 was the “heaviest decade” of immigration in US history (Daniels, 188). In 1920, the total population was 105 million—14 million foreign born (Daniels, 274). But immigration laws of 1921 and 1924 began to cut immigration. In 1917, legislation brought various tests such as literacy and longitude (prohibiting Asians) with seven different types of restrictions (Daniels, 278-279 ).

During this time, immigration and naturalization was almost entirely by White people. I say “almost” because I do not consider Jews to be White. However, it is important to note that the Jews that did immigrate were from Europe. There were Chinese workers allowed to come as itinerant workers due to the gold rush. Abraham Lincoln allowed the Chinese to enter the country through the Contract Labor Act of 1864. As a result, the foreign born rose to 14.4% of the population in 1870.12 However, they were not citizens. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 barred them from naturalization on racial ground (Daniels, 271). The common sentiment of the day was expressed well by President Grover Cleveland:

“(The) experiment of blending the social habits and mutual race idiosyncrasies of the Chinese laboring classes with those of the great body of the people of the United States… [has been] proved … in every sense unwise, impolitic, and injurious to both nations” (Daniels, 272).

It is important to note that the liberal unitarian Charles Sumner tried desperately to erase “White” from naturalization laws.13 However, the Naturalization Act of 1870 still upheld the “White” principle of 1790.

It is important also to note the presence of Mexicans in the United States during this time. Their history goes back to the Spanish settlements in the early colonial period and the Mexican War of 1846. Much could be said about the early settlements of Southern California, New Mexico and Texas. I will take this up later in the article, but suffice it to say that it was the White Americans who populated the country and gave it the governance that it now has. It is one thing for a population to have lived there before the Whites, but it is another thing to settle the area and develop a prosperous civilization. Mexicans did not do the latter. During the time of 1820 to 1930, 1.3 million Latinos (750,000 Mexicans) entered this area. A large part of this was due to the need for labor. These Latinos (or Mexicans) were itinerant laborers, not citizens (Daniels, 307).

Thus, we can conclude that this period did bring a change, but that change was not in race, but in religion.14 Catholics came in large numbers and with much protest throughout the country.

Years of Stabilization (1924-1945)

In the history of the United States, there have been three major shifts against immigration: first, anti-Catholic, second anti-Asian, and then third anti-All (Daniels, 265). The third phase of anti-immigration finally triumphed in 1924. This period demonstrates the push against nonwhites and the stabilization of the racial makeup of the country.

Even the liberal Jew, Robert Daniels, acknowledged the social conflict that existed in the 1920s due to the large influx of various Europeans with various cultures, languages and a different from of Christianity (i.e. Catholic). America was a prosperous nation, “but riven by social conflict and confused by social change” (Daniels, 281). Thus, there was a large push to greatly limit immigration and entirely limit it from nonwhite races.

President Calvin Coolidge wrote his now infamous “Whose Country Is This?” wherein he, in no uncertain terms, expressed a form of White supremacy and the detrimental effects that inter-racial marriage brought to society. He wrote:

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides.”15

Congressman Albert Johnson, the chief author of the 1924 act, also wrote:

“Today, instead of a well-knit homogenous citizenry, we have a body politic made up of all and every diverse element. Today, instead of a nation descended from generations of freemen bred to a knowledge of the principles and practice of self-government… we have a heterogeneous population no small proportion of which is sprung from races that, throughout the centuries, have known no liberty at all…. in other words, our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood… it is no wonder therefore, that the myth of the melting pot has been discredited … the United States is our land … We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended” (Daniels, 283-284).16

How did the National Origins Act of 1924 greatly limit immigration? First, it limited annual immigration to 2% of each nationality’s population in the U.S. based on the 1890 census, heavily favoring Western European countries and reducing immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. Second, it set an annual cap of immigration at 165,000. Third, it effectively barred immigration from most Asian countries. Fourth, it maintained that immigrants obtain a visa from consulates abroad before entry. Finally, it established the US Border patrol to enforce immigration particularly along the Mexican border.

The 1924 law increased the percentage allowed to the British Isles, Germany and Scandinavian countries, barred the Japanese from citizenship, and “tightened the administrative apparatus and made deportation for a variety of causes much easier” (Daniels, 283). The National Origins Act did limit immigration for Catholics and Jews (Daniels, 299). In addition, immigration was just less popular due to the Great Depression. Things just were not all that great in America during those years. In fact, there were more noncitizens leaving the country than entering during the years of 1932-1935 (Daniels, 294). But this would dramatically change with end of War World II.

A Dramatic Change (1945-1965)

17

In Steve Sailer’s book Noticing, he has a chapter entitled, “Invade the World, Invite the World.” In the articles under this chapter, he basically communicates the idea that the modern American Wars have brought foreign immigrants to the country. This idea began, not during the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, but with World War II.

After World War II, immigration shifted from a racial homogenous perspective, to a “multi-cultural” perspective. In 1943 and 1946, small quotas of Chinese, Filipinos and Indians were allowed to immigrate, and in 1943, the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed (Daniels, 328). “War Brides” were common for White men in the armed forces both from the conflict in the Pacific during WWII, but also from the Korean War (and later during the Vietnam war).

In 1947, President Truman extended a warm offer to “fulfill our responsibilities to these suffering and homeless refugees of all faiths” (Daniels, 330). 1948 marked a turning point in the American consensus for it was the beginning of a “refugee policy” which invited various nonwhite people from non-European places to come and be eventually naturalized (Daniels, 330). Various laws would be brought up and change the policy of immigration. As a result, European immigration dropped significantly, but Asian and Latin immigration grew exceedingly (Daniels, 333). The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 did what Charles Sumner wanted to do in 1870, “… the act ended the total exclusion of racial and ethnic groups from naturalization and immigration and …. made the naturalization laws color blind” (Daniels, 329).

However, the biggest change in immigration came in 1965 with the Hart-Celler Act. William Miller, the GOP vice-presidential candidate of 1964, warned that it would open the “floodgates” (Daniels, 339). He was right. It ended the National Origins Act of 1924 (Daniels, 338) and eliminated the issue of race as a matter of principle (Daniels, 341). It allowed for the chain migration of families and greatly decreased the number of European immigrants. Although liberals like to argue that America has always been a “nation of immigrants” and a cultural “melting pot”—this act was the first immigration policy that supported that notion. It represented what some call the “Post War Consensus” which flowed from Marxist and Communist presuppositions. The White Christian heritage of America was replaced with a multi-ethnic and multi-religious heritage and trajectory that has continued to this day.

Pictured above: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act on New York’s Liberty Island on October 3, 1965.18

The Post War Consensus (1965-2000)

19

Shifting from the “nativist”20 perspectives of the 20s and 30s, was a new American consensus. White Americans adopted an egalitarian Marxist mentality, invited the foreigner and adopted the “White man’s burden” idea. As Sailer put it, in 1899 the burden of the White man was to invade the world, but later, it was to invite the world.21 The New American consensus was that America was the home of the refugee, asylee and anybody else that wanted to come over, “Having a refugee policy was part of the new American consensus” (Daniels, 347). Americans were told by elites that it was a “permanently unfinished country” and that one of its characteristics, “is the constantly changing mix of peoples who come here” (Daniels, 408).

Some anti-immigration laws returned in the 1980s due to a concern about “multi-cultural” problems (Daniels, 388). But the act of 1986 did not undo the Post War Consensus. Although the act of 1986 was perceived to be anti-Spanish and perceived to be a “conservative” act due to its concern over cultural homogeneity, there was no real change to the Post War Consensus (Daniels, 391). All it was doing was slowing down the amalgamation of nonwhites with Whites. There were 4 provisions in the bill, the chief one regarding the English language, but the multi-racial policies of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 were left unchanged (Daniels, 398).

In the history of the USA, immigrants largely stayed around the cities. But it was during this time (i.e. post 1965) that four major states (California, New York, Texas and Florida) and three major cities (New York, Los Angeles and Miami) emerged as primary hubs for immigrants (Daniels, 404-405). 12 million immigrants came for the purpose of naturalization from 1965-1989 (Daniels, 408). Illegal immigration at this time was largely transitory. Europeans represented less of the immigrants by the passing decade: 52% in the 50s, 33% in the 60s, 10% by the 80s (Daniels, 333).

Immigration by Ethnicity (1940s – 2000)

Asians

By 1940 less than 4/10ths of 1 percent of the American people were Asian, by 1960 ½ of 1 percent, by 1980, Asians were 1.5 percent of the total population.

22

“Meaningful Chinese immigration to the United States begins roughly with the California gold rush of 1849” (Daniels, 239). They stayed largely in San Francisco along with the Japanese. Between 1909-1934, 120,000 Filipinos came (Daniels, 357). Inter-racial marriage with the White population was a huge factor (Daniels, 352) in becoming naturalized for 85% of them were females and most of them married former soldiers. Regarding the Japanese, the first immigrants started in the 1890s and before 1924, there were only 300,000 in the US (Daniels, 250). By the 1930s, there were 30,000 living in Los Angeles (Daniels, 254), but they were unable to be citizens (Daniels, 256). The Filipinos were ineligible for citizenship until 1946 (Daniels, 356). By 1990, there were almost 1.5 million Filipinos in America (Daniels, 359). The 800,000 Koreans came after the Korean war. In the 1930s, there was only 9,000 living in the US and many of these were Christians (Daniels, 365). By 1980, there were 245,000 Vietnamese, and by 1990 1.25 mil (Daniels, 369). The Indians (from India) were only 7,000 between 1948-1965 (Daniels, 362) but by the 1980s, there were 387,000 (Daniels, 351). Some of these were Sikhs and Muslims but most were Hindus. By the end of the 1980s, there were 600,000 Indians in the US (Daniels, 360).

Mexicans

Between 1820 to 1930, 1.3 million entered the country (Daniels, 307). In 1960, there were fewer than 1.75 million Mexicans. At the time of the 1846 Mexican war, 80,000 lived in California, New Mexico and Texas (Daniels, 307-308). By the 1980 census, 8.6 million Mexicans lived in the US. If we compare that number to the 471,000 in the 1900 census, the number of Mexicans who had entered the US multiplied 18x between 1900 and 1980, whereas the total population of the US only multiplied by 3x. Mexican immigrants are by far urbanites, poor, uneducated, and Roman Catholic.23

Cubans

In 1950, there were 30,000 living in the US (Daniels, 373). After the rise of Castro and the missile crisis of 1962, 150,000 more came. It is interesting to note that 72% of Cubans are of White Spanish descent (Daniels, 375). By 1973, 250,000 Cubans lived in the US (Daniels, 374). The 1980 Mariel crisis brought another 125,000 “asylees” to the States (Daniels, 347). Many of these settled in Florida and especially in Miami.

Puerto Ricans

The island was annexed by the United States in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898. After 1917, they were American Citizens by birth. In 1940, fewer than 70,000 lived on the mainland, but by 1987 there were 2.2 million, 50% in New York City alone (Daniels, 320).

Others

In the 1980 census, there were 92,000 Haitians in the US of which 88% came after 1965. More than a million Dominicans came via tourist visas, but then illegally stayed. This was common for other nonwhite ethnicities, not just Dominicans (Daniels, 377).

Central and South Americans

The instability of various countries in central and south America encouraged the people in these regions to come to the USA, especially through the “refugee” and “asylee” programs. War with Soviet Russia and the various communist countries that sprung up in the Western Hemisphere was a big factor for immigration from these countries to the US (Daniels, 381).

In 1960, there were fewer than 400,000 Latinos and 1.75 million Mexicans in the US (Daniels, 371).24 But each of the next two decades brought 250,000 South Americans and 100,000 Central Americans. There were 94,000 Salvadoreans, and 64,000 Guatemalans that came which were then given amnesty for illegally entering the country by the “conservative” act of 1986 (Daniels, 382).

The Immigration Act of 1990 allowed for: H-1B visas for skilled workers, O-1 visas for extraordinary workers, and 55,000 under diversity programs. The diversity programs were originally designed for the Irish people but started shifting in 1995. By 2016, Asian (40 percent) and African people (31 percent) received a large portion.25

26

Recent Radicalization (2001-2025)

Immigration has continued to play a significant part in American politics for the last 25 years.27 Both Republicans and Democrats both encouraged or discouraged immigration for various reasons depending on what was politically expedient. The consensus that America was a land of immigrants and the idea that America should be a place for the world’s refugees was never seriously changed by anyone, including Trump in his first term.

Following the September 11^th, 2001 terrorist attacks, George W. Bush’s administration approved the USA Patriot Act which had the result of limiting immigration from the Middle East and from Muslims based on a concern of more terrorists attacks. But he also appealed to the hispanic voters in the 2000 election by showing a “softer” approach toward Mexican immigration and the southern border. Obama was nicknamed the “deporter-in-chief” for removing 1.2 million illegals. However, this nickname is misleading for Obama, to give one reason, approved The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012 which provided temporary protection from deportation and work authorization for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children. But in 2016, it was estimated that there 10.6 million illegals in the US and immigration became a bigger issue in Trump’s first term. He banned entry from many Muslim countries and instituted a “Put America First” policy which he hoped to bring more jobs for “real” Americans and lower crime.

One thing that became apparent during the last several Presidencies is how prominent the Executive branch has become in controlling the issue of immigration. There has been no real immigration reform since the 1980s. Instead, the executive branch has set the agenda for immigration. Compared to the massive shifts in the 20s and the change in philosophy from the 1965 Act, nothing very significant has taken place in the last 25 years as far as legislation. Regardless, the last 25 years has seen a continued rise in immigration and a continued rise in the number of foreign born and the increased cultural amalgamation of America.

The desire for White people to be an “absolute minority” has been a staple of the Democratic party. Biden has openly stated that diversity is a strength to the US and during his term (2017-2024) carried out what many Republicans called an “open door” policy. In 2022, it was estimated that there were 11.3 million “unauthorized” immigrants. The shift in rhetoric is significant. These immigrants were no longer considered illegal but “unauthorized” or simply “undocumented.” The Biden administration showed a clear push to disturb the cultural and ethnic make-up of America. The CBO One app was a program that was presented to the public to modernize the legal immigration process. But, functionally speaking, it was used to speed up immigration from various countries (especially those in South America).

Pressure began to build against Biden as scenes of “migrants”28 sheltering in government-provided housing on the streets became commonplace in major US cities. Biden extended work permits from 2 to 5 years. He issued 11.5 million visas in 2024 which outpaced previous records and encouraged education for internationals. In 2024, 1.1 million international students attended American schools (6.5% of total student population). Under Biden from 2021-2024, there were 3.5 million immigrant naturalizations to US Citizenship from 2021-24—by far the most of any single presidential term.

It is no wonder that Trump began his campaign, for the 2024 election year, with immigration as his hot issue. In fact, the issue of immigration was the biggest issue on the mind of “conservative” Americans. Crime was up, drug trafficking was rampant, illegal crossings were widespread, and a radical attempt by the democratic party to “Make America Diverse Again” was bothersome to many Americans regardless of their place on the political spectrum. And one of the greatest rebukes to Biden’s term was how quickly Trump closed the southern border after being elected in 2024. Although Biden claimed that closing the border was due to lack of funds or the inability to get congress’ approval, it was due to his unwillingness, and his “catch and release” policy at the southern border.

Muslims

It is hard to determine exact numbers regarding religion because that is not how the US immigration authorities keep count.29 In 2007, the Pew Research center estimated that 2.35 million Muslims lived in the US (0.8 % of population) but in 2020, that number has risen to 3.85 million.30 It has only increased since then.

The most concerning Muslim immigration story appears to be Dearborn, Michigan. Online sources indicate that 48,600 Muslims live in the city, 54% of the population.31 However, it is also concerning that the largest city in the America, New York, has elected a Socialist Muslim as its Mayor— Zohran Mamdani. I have heard of various incidents scattered across large cities (i.e. Atlanta), that Muslims are taking over apartment complexes and beginning to develop, in practice, their own local laws. When a White man cannot exercise his free speech (i.e. street preach and pass out Christian tracts) because a particular locale is dominated by vehement Muslims, every Christian should be deeply bothered. Muslims in America present the face of “toleration” and “assimilation” but in practice they simply want to take over the nation by natural increase and take advantage of our liberal and tolerant views on religion and foreign cultures. “Islam in every house!” is their battle cry.32

This account of the Muslim invasion of the US is not peculiar to me, nor extreme. But it is part of the story of immigration in America. It is also part of the failure of the current system. Every Christian American can get behind at least this much—something needs to change. Thankfully, some legislators are waking up. Recently, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (from Alabama) has spoken out against radical Islam. On Dec 19, 2025, he wrote on X (@SenTuberville), “I am all for immigrants who want to come in, ASSIMILATE, and love America as much as we do. But we CANNOT bring in radical Islamic TERRORISTS who chant DEATH TO AMERICA.”33 Tuberville’s sentiments fall short of what needs to happen, but it shows a rise of concern among some Republican leaders and he has continued to push for this in more recent months.

Herein ends my brief history of the immigration in the USA.

Part 2 – Debunking Two Myths

There are two claims about the history of immigration in the United States that I would like to disprove. First, the myth that America is a“nation of immigrants” and second, that it has always been a “melting pot” of culture and ethnicities. In doing so, I will make clear how, in recent years, academia has used liberal ideology to lie to heritage Americans.34

“A Nation of Immigrants”

John F. Kennedy wrote A Nation of Immigrants in 1958. In this book, he helped propagate the lie that the USA had always been a nation of immigrants and to oppose immigrants was “unamerican.” By the 1980s, Daniels reports that there was a “new American consensus” to adopt the idea that America ought to receive the world’s political and religious asylees and refugees. Daniels, considered by many to be the expert on immigration history in the US, also helped propagate this idea throughout American universities. He boldly asserted that immigrants are “… Americans as soon as they land,” (Daniels, 30) and that all people in US history were immigrants, even calling the slaves “African immigrants” (Daniels, 31). The understanding that America is a nation of immigrants is best summarized by him below:

“… that enduring notion that persons who came early in our history should be called colonists or settlers, while those who came later should be called immigrants. Such a view is obviously nonsense. Although there is some utility in distinguishing between immigrants and native born …. those born in the country of choice are native stock whatever prejudice or law may say about them.” (Daniels, 29)

Who cannot see that this a lie? Instead, as I have proved earlier, the USA was forged and settled by, not only White Europeans, but predominantly English Protestants. They came to a land undeveloped and pagan. The American Indians were scattered across the land, divided among countless tribes and languages. They were extremely warlike and almost entirely opposed to the true religion. The English colonists came, in large part, for religious freedom and for the conversion of the heathen (Johnson, 30). They came to a place desolate and undeveloped. This is in stark contrast to the immigrants in recent decades (and today) who seek better opportunities, better living conditions and to enter a land which is already settled.

Compared to the colonists of the 1600s, modern immigrants to America are not noble people. To put immigrants of the last 80-100 years on the same level as the Colonists and settlers of the 1600s and 1700s is liberal propaganda. Recent immigrants have come because it is a safer and more comfortable place to live. However, one clergyman involved in a colony in New England (Cape Ann) wrote in 1626:

“The most eminent and desirable end of planting colonies is the propagation of religion… necessity may oppress some: novelty draw on others: hopes of gain in time to come may prevail with a third sort: but that the most sincere and godly part have the advancement of the gospel for their main scope I am confident” (Johnson, 30).

This account of the early colonists could be repeated many times over. These were the types of people that came to America’s shores and founded the colonies. And it was a very different reason than the reason of immigrants in recent decades.

Consider the hardships of the early colonists. Roanoke was the first English colony on American shores, and those who would establish it set sail in 1587. It utterly vanished from the face of the earth (Daniels, 32). Jamestown was the first successful English colony, which started in 1619. At the end of the first year, two-thirds of the original 108 colonists died. Two winters later 80% died of starvation, reducing the colony from 500 to 60. By 1625, 3,000 had died, leaving 1,200 people. It was not until 1700 that births exceeded deaths (Daniels, 32). Clearly these people were motivated by money and comfort, right? Other colonists expressed like difficulties, and they continued to face such hardships as they spread along the eastern seaboard.

Colonists continued to come to America. The 13 original colonies have their own story of separate charters and leaders. However, the historian must take note that men were bringing their entire “puritan” families with them and having children which would spread across the land.

“By 1700 there were perhaps ninety thousand Europeans and descendants of Europeans living there, more than four times the twenty-two thousand in 1650. This increase was not chiefly due to immigration… there was a negative net migration of some six thousand persons in the second half of the seventeenth century, so the gain was due to natural increase— the excess of births over deaths.” (Daniels, 51)

Where were all the immigrants? They would come. But we must appreciate that these English subjects were beginning to develop their own sense of nationhood—by birth and toil on their new land.

The forging of the American people occurred during the religious fervor of the Great Awakening and during the successful war against Britain (as mentioned earlier). Americans did not immigrate; they settled the land. Furthermore, when immigrants did come in those early years, it was not in significant numbers, and they too helped settle the land, especially the western portions. The American people were here, with their prosperity, forging their own nation with the blessing of God. The nation building that occurred was done by White Americans, not immigrants nor the slaves. All of this was done by the White Americans without immigrants. As I have mentioned, immigration was not prominent until after 1815.

A similar thing can be said about the largely Catholic immigration of the 1820-1920s. The West needed to be settled, and a large portion of these immigrants would help do that settling. They are not of the same class as the original settlers or colonists, but neither are they like the post WWII nonwhite immigrants. The immigrants of the early 1800s could also be called settlers. They built churches, schools and whole cities as they pushed west. They toiled and labored to make the nation what it would be by the time of World War II. It was a big mistake to allow Romanists to enter in, but my point is not so much about religion as it is to debunk the modern myth of immigration (and how that myth supports the amalgamation of the races). There is a big difference between post-1945 immigrants and pre-1924 immigrants. And that difference is not just in the racial makeup, but in their forming and settling the nation. Most post-1965 immigrants are leeches taking the spoil, but the pre-1924 immigrants came to work and produce wealth for the host nation.35

It is not to say that immigrants have not contributed to the nation. Good immigrants have, bad immigrants have not. However, the point is that we must not adopt the propaganda that America is a “nation of immigrants.” It is totally false. But to the degree that America is a “nation of immigrants,” it is modern political movement and contrary to Scriptural principles of naturalization.36 There are heritage Americans whose forefathers forged the nation and there are immigrants who have since come (rightly or wrongly) and have either assimilated (or not) into the nation. America is not a “nation of immigrants.”

“A Melting Pot”

Another lie is that America is a melting pot of cultures. This claim is plausible only if you are ignorant of the history of immigration which is, in large part, why I have written this article. For example, it is evident today that America is extremely diverse. There are people from every continent living in large numbers in this one single country. People now look at America and say that it has been a “melting pot” since its beginning. They then talk about the various “religions” and “ethnicities” of the colonies and of the 1800s.

However, it is wrong to compare the post 1965 America with America before World War II in this regard. As I have demonstrated, the Dutch, German, and French settlers of the 1600s were Protestant. They did have shades of difference in their protestantism, but it cannot be said they had a different “religion” as if they were Muslims or Hindus. They did have shades of difference in their culture, but all three main groups (Dutch, German, and French) assimilated very well into the dominant English culture and language. Furthermore, they were all ethnic cousins (Northwestern Europeans). The racial diversity between these three groups with the English is nothing compared to the vast racial diversity of the English with Indians, Somalians, Arabs and other Asians.

Yes, the Roman Catholicism of the Irish, Italians, and French Canadians is very different than English Protestantism. Yet, it is one thing to talk about mass Muslim immigration and another thing to talk about mass Catholic immigration of Europeans. I am strongly opposed to Romanism, but we cannot say that Islam and Romanism have the same degree of cultural difference with English Protestantism. To assume this and then assert that America has always been a “melting pot” of cultures is a lie.37

Now we are a melting pot of culture and religion, but America was not always so. The current status quo will not work and is a huge part of the social and political unrest within America’s borders today. Diversity is not our strength. It is a curse, and it is not working. To reject the “melting pot” ideology is actually to be American, not vice versa.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article is to summarize the facts of immigration in US history and to offer a brief analysis of two well-known myths about immigration.

The honest reader will recognize that, “the legal regime [of immigration] …has changed radically over that time (1789-2019).”38 America was an English and Protestant nation, then a White and Christian nation, and since World War II, an “everything” nation. In connection with the previous article’s exposition from Deuteronomy 23:7-8 on biblical immigration and naturalization, we can see that America needs repentance. And this repentance must not only be individually to Christ as King of the soul, but also nationally to Christ as King of nations.

However, before I make any more specific applications, inter-racial marriage needs to be addressed. This is an issue that ties everything together. What does the Bible say about that? This will be the topic of my next article.

Thus far in my series, I have covered the theology of race and, most recently, defined what the Bible says is a “nation.” In discussing what the Scriptures say about a nation, I interacted briefly with immigration and naturalization. In this and the subsequent article, I will dig deeper into these two issues. First, I will address what the Bible says about naturalization— the admittance of a foreigner to the citizenship of a country.

The Biblical principles of naturalization are largely derived from the judicial laws of Moses given to Israel as a nation. Most Christians approach this issue with ignorance of or prejudice against the Old Testament law. This is a big mistake. Israel was not only the covenant people of God, but they were also a nation. It would be foolish for any nation (especially a Christian nation) to ignore these laws given by God to Israel.

I realize some of my readers may have a dispensational theology. These Christians, therefore, see very little significance in the Old Testament law for the New Testament Christian. To effectively refute the errors of dispensationalism would take me beyond the scope of my article. I direct my readers to consider other literature on this matter.1 Thus, I will assume a basic unity and continuity between the Old and New Testaments. However, even those who adopt this approach to the Old and New Testaments, need to realize some preliminary principles.

Thus, I will divide this article into two parts. (1) I will briefly cover some exegetical principles foundational to my later exegesis of the Old Testament law. (2) I will exegete a specific judicial law (Deut 23:7-8) which is the main legislation in the law of Moses on naturalization. Again, I will refrain from any specific applications to the USA. But applications will be made once I address the history of US immigration and principles of inter-racial marriage.

What does the Bible say about the naturalization of foreigners into the citizenship of a country?

Part 1 - Preliminary Principles

I will cover three preliminary principles.

#1 – Israel was both the church and a nation.

Much confusion regarding who could come into the nation of Israel can be cleared up when this principle is understood. Israel was unique in that it was both the church and a nation. The United States of America is a specific nation, but it is not the church. It contains the church, but it is not the visible people of God as Israel was in the Old Testament. Even if the USA were to become a Christian Nation and publicly acknowledge the Lordship of Christ over the nation, it would still be different from the Old Testament nation of Israel. However, it is important to note for now that Israel was not only the church (the covenant people of God) but also a specific nation. How so?

First, Israel developed a two-fold system of courts. There was a civil court where various crimes and other civil matters were handled by civil judges and officers. Then there was an ecclesiastical court wherein matters of worship and cleanliness were adjudicated. This idea is codified in the Mosaic law in Deut 19:17 (see also Deut 17:12), “Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;” The priest represents the ecclesiastical court, and the judges the civil court. However, this point becomes clearer as we observe the life of Israel in its history.

David operated this way as it can be seen from 1 Chr 26:30-32: “And of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, men of valour, a thousand and seven hundred, were officers among them of Israel on this side Jordan westward in all the business of the Lord, and in the service of the king… for every matter pertaining to God, and affairs of the king.”

This twofold court system was also reinstated during the reformations of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chr 19:8-11: “Moreover in Jerusalem did Jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the priests, and of the chief of the fathers of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to Jerusalem… And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king’s matters...”

This view was commonly held by the theologians who met at Westminster, and it was embodied in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). In chapter 19, paragraph 4, the WCF states that God gave Israel judicial laws “as a body politic.” Furthermore, the WCF also asserts that Israel was the Old Testament church in paragraph 3, “…God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws…” George Gillespie, who attended the Westminster assembly wrote on this issue in his book Aaron’s Rod Blossoming. He dedicated a whole chapter to this point, and his main thesis can be aptly summarized in this quote:

“Thus Mr Selden, who hath thereby made it manifest that there was a distinction of the Jewish church and Jewish state, because those proselytes, being embodied into the Jewish church as church members, and having a right to communicate in the holy ordinances among the rest of the people of God, yet were not properly members of the Jewish state, nor admitted to civil privileges…”2

The reason why this point is significant is that it informs our understanding of many passages that could appear to grant non-Israelites citizenship within the state. There are many passages that grant church privileges to non-Israelites, and the foremost of these passages (and one that serves as a paradigm for the rest) is Exodus 12:43-49:

“⁴³ And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: ⁴⁴ But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. ⁴⁵ A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. ⁴⁶ In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. ⁴⁷ All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. ⁴⁸ And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. ⁴⁹ One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.”

This passage grants ecclesiastical privileges to the converted non-Israelite stranger (gar) who comes to Israel to serve the living God. It is a picture of how God, even in the Old Testament, had his eye upon the gentiles that would eventually flood into his church in the New Testament. It is presumed that the stranger (nacri) in v.43 and the stranger (tosab) and hired servant (sacer) in v.45 were forbidden because they were not converted to the LORD. However, the stranger (gar) in v.48 is (given the context of the passage and its frequent usage in the OT) a converted non-Israelite. He is a sojourner (gar) in the land and at the gate who does not have civil privileges, but by reason of his conversion and obedience to the laws was allowed to worship with native Israel. Upon circumcision, he could partake of the Lord’s Passover.

But is Exodus 12:43-49 speaking of civil privileges? Is Moses writing about owning land and ruling in Israel? No, instead, he is setting forth legislation governing who may worship and enjoy ecclesiastical privileges. Thus, this stranger (gar) entered the church, not the state. In like manner, a foreigner could enter membership at a local church in the USA although not yet a citizen of the USA. In conclusion, one ought not to read Exodus 12:43-49 (and other passages like it) wherein the stranger (gar) is with the congregation of Israel and think that the strangers were fully naturalized into the citizenship of the nation.

Furthermore, it becomes clearer that the stranger (gar) was not a member of the nation of Israel as we look at the issue of land ownership. Naboth (even during a time of apostasy) would not sell his land even to King Ahab. “The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee” (1 Kings 21:3). This was the norm for how Israelites treated their land—even for Northern Israelites like Naboth. Thus, it is extremely doubtful that sojourners (gar) would have ever owned land. Who would have given them their inheritance?

In support of this, commentator John Trapp wrote regarding a similar passage in Ezek 47:22, “Under the Old Testament, though strangers lived with the Children of Israel, yet they had no inheritance with them at any time...”3 Here, when Trapp uses the word “stranger”, he has in mind the converted foreigner or sojourner (gar) for certainly the unconverted foreigner (nacri/zar) would not have been allowed to own land in Israel.4 Owning land would mean incorporation into the state of Israel, but strangers were not allowed to own land. Thus, we should see a division between the church and the state in Israel.

#2 – The Mosaic law of Israel was threefold: civil, ceremonial and moral.

The WCF ch. 19 makes this same point, namely, that Israel was given three types of laws—civil, ceremonial and moral. The civil law sprung forth from the moral but was applied to that specific nation in their place and time. The ceremonial law pertained only to their unique worship in the Old Testament which was eventually abrogated by the coming of Christ. The moral law is rooted in God’s eternal and unchanging nature and is always a rule of life for all people. Some object to this threefold distinction on the grounds that it is not found anywhere in Scripture explicitly. However, Christians should derive doctrine not just from direct statements or approved examples, but also by good and necessary consequence.5

It is hard to read the Bible, especially the book of Hebrews, and not realize that a large body of the laws given by Moses pertained to Israel as a “church under age” (WCF 19:3). God revealed himself incrementally in time and these outward ordinances were useful to them before the outpouring of the Spirit in the New Testament.6 The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Although the moral law is not temporary, some aspects of the words of the Ten Commandments were temporary. For example, the 5^th commandment is not just a blessing if you live in the land of Israel, but wherever one may live, as Paul adapted the words in Ephesians 6:1-3, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” He adjusted the words to his audience who lived in Ephesus and not in the land of Israel. The original 5^th commandment was different. Exodus 20:12, “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” But Paul did not change the moral law. He cannot change it for it is rooted in God’s unchanging and perfect nature. However, he did change that which was temporary in the words of the 5^th commandment. Thus, we see that even in the 10 commandments there are words of a temporary nature, but the moral law—to honor parents—remains unchanged.

This is important to point out because it is often overlooked today. Some Christians chop out more of God’s Old Testament law than they ought. Other Christian groups (seventh day Adventist, etc) apply too much of the Old Testament law. Many things could be said about the three-fold division of the law, but this is sufficient for my current purpose.7

#3 – The “general equity” of the civil law is operative for all nations today.

The moral law abides in its totality, the ceremonial law is abolished,8 but the judicial law is a bit more nuanced. It does not apply flatly and directly across the board because Israel had its unique national circumstances of time and place. But instead, only the judicial law’s “general equity” applies today. This is stated in the WCF (19:4), “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” Volumes of books have been written on this topic, and it is worthy of more careful study, but I will attempt to give a brief explanation.

Paul applies the general equity established in Deut 25:4 regarding the ox, to a pastor who works for his congregation and establishes the principle that a congregation ought to provide for their working pastor. He says in 1 Cor 9:9-10, “For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.” Notice how clearly, he applies the Old Testament law to the people in Corinth under the New Testament. Is this the only application for Deut 25:4? No, but instead, the general equity of the principle in Deut 25:4 could be applied in other ways in other situations—even civil applications.

Consider Deut 22:8, “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” In our day, we do not walk on top of roofs normally, nor are we required to have such access. However, the principle (or general equity) is clear. The builder of the home has a duty to protect those who go to a potentially dangerous area. Thus, historically in American civil code, most pool owners have been required to have a fence around their backyard pool. Why? Because it is possible for a small child to wander in the backyard and fall in and drown. The people who fail to put up a fence are culpable to some degree.

Another example could be found regarding capital punishment. Capital punishment by the hand of the lawful magistrate was (and is) valid in certain cases (Gen 9:6, Rom 13:4), but it does not necessarily need to be done by throwing stones (Lev 20:2,27, 24:16, etc). The firing line is acceptable as one circumstance that may change. Why? Because it never was so much about the “stones” as it was about the capital punishment and public participation. Stones were accessible then, but now other methods may prove just as accessible and acceptable to the general equity of stoning.

In part 2 of this article, I will comment on Deut 23:1-8 and what it says about the Edomite and the Egyptian. But it would be foolish for any nation to overlook the “general equity” of this law and only apply it strictly to the modern-day Edomite and modern-day Egyptian. Instead, they must seek to find the principle underneath the law in Deut 23:1-8 and apply it to their own time and place. In Deut 23:1-8, the “Edomite” represents a nation that is close in kin to the host nation. It also is clear that the “Egyptian” was mentioned because of their national service to Israel during the famine in the days of Joseph and in giving them the land of Goshen to dwell during this famine. This has implications for nations now although they may not specifically be associated with Edomites or Egyptians.

Furthermore, pastors and ministers ought to study the law of Moses and inform their government (Ps 2:10) insofar as the law reveals principles for their nation, state or county. Natural law and other principles are also to be referenced by the government, but it would be sinful for any nation to ignore the judicial laws God laid down for Israel in their time and place.

Therefore, we now ask, “What did God give to Israel as principles for immigration, assimilation and naturalization into the nation?” This will be the topic of the following section.

Part 2 - Biblical Principles of Naturalization

There are four biblical principles of naturalization.

#1 – Assimilation to the host nations’ religion and customs is always required for any immigrant seeking permanent residence or naturalization.

We see how it was assumed that the stranger (gar) was to assimilate into the religion of Israel in passages like Exodus 12:43-49. The whole point is that he is a convert to the true religion (i.e. circumcision as required before the Passover). Any non-believer participating in such a religious observance as the Passover would be the height of hypocrisy. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that foreigners learned Hebrew since that was the national language (Gen 42:23, 2 Kings 18:26, Deut 28:49, Jer 5:15, Neh 13:24).

However, there is more to assimilation than language and religion. One example of what proper assimilation looked like is in the example of conquered foreign women. In Deut 21:10-14, Moses sets forth what a foreign captive woman was to do if an Israelite man decided to take her as his wife. She was to shave her head and pare her nails (which was a sign of putting off her former ways and former people), change her clothing and bewail her parents for a full month. Then, and only after this, was the Israelite man allowed to take her as wife. In other words, she was to become an Israelite woman first (by way of putting off her former ways) before marriage could occur.

However, the clearest example of assimilation is found in the story of Ruth. We can assume that this custom was understood and even common among the other nations in that day. She vowed to follow Naomi into Israel upon the death of their husbands. She said in Ruth 1:16-17, “And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.” Here we have a firm vow that ought to be taken as prescriptive and instructive for us today for any foreigner coming into a nation. Ruth was expected to take Israel as her people, to take the true God as her God, and to be committed to that land and people until her death. This gets at the very heart of assimilation. Do these words sound like she would she be celebrating her Moabite culture and heritage?

Today, we find American citizens of Somalian, Jewish or of Middle Eastern origin who are now citizens and even rulers in the USA and yet they (more or less) still carry their former customs, language and former allegiance to their nations of origin. This is not assimilation, and these people who do this ought not to be allowed into citizenship. Regardless of race, if one lives in America and is a current citizen, then he must live and die for America, waive the American flag only, and seek her national good and no other.9

#2 – Immigration and naturalization is in small increments so as not to disturb the host nation’s national identity.

Mass immigration was never approved or seen as a good thing in the history or laws of Israel. In fact, when mass immigration does appear in Scripture (see 2 Kings 17:24),10 it is a judgment upon Northern Israel for her apostasy. We read of no approved examples of what we experience today in the West and in America. Millions of foreigners have come into the USA in the last few decades and without biblical warrant. The Gibeonites were no exception. We know that a special curse was upon them that does not apply now to any nation, and we also know that Joshua should not have let them in, nor does it appear that they were a very large people. Furthermore, they remained permanent slaves and did not attain citizenship (Josh 9:23).

However, we must also recognize that the stranger (gar) holds a very prominent place in the Old Testament narrative. Many of the civil laws gave them not only ecclesiastical privileges, but also certain protections in the civil code as permanent or semi-permanent residents. But just how prominent were they in the land? How many non-Israelites were residing in the land of Israel with the blood descendants of the 12 tribes?

As I mentioned in a previous article, only 8-9% of the population were non-native Israelites.11 Furthermore, only a portion of this 8-9% would have been eligible for citizenship. It was not a common thing. My preceding exegesis of Deut 23:1-8 will clear up some of this but suffice it to say that the amount of non-Israelite blood that came into full incorporation with Israel was small and certainly much smaller than what we are currently seeing with mass-immigration today in America.

I also add that just because Deut 23:1-8 provides laws for naturalization, this does not require all nations now to receive all foreigners that come knocking on the door. Dr. Wolfe rightly stated:

“My view is that the principle of exclusion, which is necessary for a people’s complete good, morally permits a Christian nation to deny immigration to Christian foreigners. Christian nations are not required to exclude them, but they can in principle.”12

What Deut 23:1-8 does is provide guidelines for a nation if they decide to allow foreigners into full incorporation. In other words, it may be wise for a nation to restrict all immigration and naturalization for a time. The USA is in that condition now due to its past of mass immigration and the growing radicalization of the liberal Democratic party.13 America needs, at the very least, to stabilize its populace and re-establish the common American ethnicity.

#3 – One class of lawful immigrants are those who have adopted the Christian religion and who are near of kin to the host nation’s ethnicity.

I will demonstrate exegesis under this heading that will also be applied in principle #4. Thus, this point comes from a proper understanding of Deut 23:1-8 which is below. It will also require the longest explanation and will be, therefore, split into two sections.

Section One:

Read Deuteronomy 23:1-8 carefully.

“¹ He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. ² A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. ³ An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever: ⁴ Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee. ⁵ Nevertheless the Lord thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee. ⁶ Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. ⁷ Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. ⁸ The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.”

The most important exegetical question of this text is the meaning behind entering into “the congregation of the LORD.” The best commentators say the phrase means a full incorporation into the state and people of Israel as citizens, but there are two other positions usually given: (1) the right to ecclesiastical privileges as indicated already in Exodus 12:43-48 and (2) the right to rule as an officer of the congregation.

I encourage my reader to read the text carefully and think deeply. I will list ten reasons why this phrase to “enter into the congregation of the LORD” ought to be understood as full incorporation into the people and state of Israel (to include the potential responsibility to rule). Again, this is a very important point of exegesis and must be properly explained and understood.

(1) Neh 13:1-3 takes it in this sense. Nehemiah annulled the marriages with these heathen people and separated them from the people.

“¹ On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever; ² Because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them: howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing. ³ Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude.”

This interpretation is reinforced by what Ezra did at an earlier time in Ezra 9:1-2 and 10:2-3. It is important to note that what Ezra did was “according to the law” (v.3). Matthew Poole comments on Neh 13:1, “i.e. not be incorporated into the commonwealth of Israel, nor be joined with any Israelite in marriage relation, as appears from Deut 23.3, that practice being a plain comment upon this law.”14 Although it is admitted that there are some disagreements among the commentators on what exactly is happening in this text, Poole’s comments demonstrate a common opinion in his day.

Some think that these foreigners were polluting Israel with their false religion and were thus separated on that basis. But we need to realize that the Jews, coming from Babylonian exile, were largely eradicated of their tendency to worship or syncretize with foreign gods. God corrected them “in measure” (Jer 46:28). In the New Testament, there is no record of them ever committing 1^st commandment violations like they did before the captivity. It would be without biblical warrant to think that these foreigners were idolators and therefore separated on that basis. Instead, they were separated because they were foreigners. In other words, the proper rules for incorporation and marriage were not being followed. Thus, Ezra and Nehemiah were applying the law of Deut 23:1-8 to their case.

Again, some object to this reading of the related passages in Ezra and Nehemiah. For example, Ezra 9:1 and following (especially v.11,14) seem to make it clear that these Israelites were joining in marriage with these peoples, not just as foreigners, but as idolaters. It says, “the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations” (v.1). However, Poole says that “doing according to their abominations…” could mean that the Israelites were marrying promiscuously whomsoever they liked—as the heathens used to do. This view makes sense because the Israelites were not charged with any other crime besides their marriage in the following account (v.2f). The phrase “doing according to their abominations…” does not necessitate an imitation of them in their idolatrous practices.

(2) All sojourners were allowed to come into the church upon conversion, and circumcision (Exodus 12:43-48). Thus, this text is speaking about something else.

It could be that Deut 23:1-8 was adding to the stipulations of Exodus 12:43-48. But if Deut 23:1-8 is not referring to laws of immigration and naturalization into the nation and instead only referring to entering into the church aspect of Israel, then Moses gave them no laws for naturalization. In that case, the de facto conclusion would be that there was no eventual assimilation of non-Israelites into Israel (except for captive foreign women in Deut 21:10-14). This would be strange since Moses’ laws were extensive for the religion and life of that nation.

(3) If this is not referring to entering the state, then there appears no good reason for why the descendants of the Edomite and the Egyptian should wait 3 generations.

Exodus 12:43-48 gives no generational time frame for the stranger (gar) to be circumcised and observe the passover. Why should the Edomite and Egyptian wait 3 generations? Plus, the reasons given why the Edomite and Egyptian should eventually enter the congregation after 3 generations are positive and not negative in substance. Why would they need to wait 3 generations to enter into the church of Israel when the reasons given are positive? Thus, it makes little sense to apply this to ecclesiastical privileges and more sense to apply it to full civil incorporation.

(5) An important assumption.

The assumption for the Edomite and the Egyptian is that they are converted and are members of the church and that they are intermarrying amongst themselves in the 1^st and 2^nd generation (hence they are still identified by their foreign ethnicity). But, at the third generation, their descendants could marry a native Israelite after having obtained naturalization.15 Their marriage partner would be their new tribe.

(6) It makes sense that it took 3 generations for the Edomite and Egyptian men to assimilate into the culture, language and religion of the Israelites.

We observe this today with immigrants coming to America. It is usually not until the third generation that the grandchildren truly identify with the place and heritage of America. In my experience, Christian foreigners only identify with the church in America, their denomination or their congregation. They have no ties to the land for they have no roots in the land. This is true even for 2nd generation immigrants. Korean or Latino Christians (for example) are very close to their congregations and Christian friends, but with very little (if any) ties to the land. However, in my case, as a heritage American, I have deep roots on both sides of my family. I am not just a Christian but an American. I know my history. The land means something to me far more than even 2nd generation immigrants. However, in the 3^rd generation, the grandchildren of foreigners would have some sense of “belonging” to the nation wherein they were born.

(7) I do not see any real difference between those commentators who say that the phrase “the congregation of the LORD” means that they have a right to rule in civil matters and those commentators who say the phrase means full incorporation into the state (as I do).

If someone has a right to rule in civil matters, they are citizens. We must remember that Israel was not feminist or egalitarian. Their women were not “citizens” in the sense that they voted or ruled. What America is like today is very unbiblical.16 Furthermore, in Nehemiah 13 where this law is referenced, there were no rulers of the people that were of these foreign nations. It was just their children and wives. However, it is granted that the phrase “the congregation of the Lord” can have a reference to the body of civil rulers (Ps 82:1, 1 Chr 28:8). But it does not appear to be used that way in the case of Deut 23:1-8 or Nehemiah 13.

(8) It is contrary to the grace of God that a bastard or one who was made a eunuch would be barred from the ordinances of grace and the church of God (see Deut 23:1-2).

This text, therefore, must be talking about civil privileges. Isa 56:3-7 seems clearly to suggest that eunuchs were allowed access to God’s worship in the Old Testament covenant. Jer 38:7 gives us an example of a eunuch that was close to the royal seed. It is highly unlikely that he was barred from worship (see Jer 34:19 as another example). We could assume the same for a bastard. It was not his fault that he was a bastard. Why would he be excluded from the church privileges of worship? However, it would make sense (to discourage fornication) to exclude that bastard from civil membership. Thus, these people were kept from incorporation into the people as a state, not the church. Both Henry and Poole say that this bar from civil privileges was not too harsh of a punishment because it was intended to deter the Jews from participating in such sins (the heathenish practices of emasculation and fornication).

(9) When the text says that the Ammonite and Moabite were excluded forever, it is meant, the males only.

This is important because most Bible readers would know that Ruth the Moabitess did come into the people of God and married Boaz. Poole emphasizes this in his Latin synopsis.17 Referring to Deut 23:3, Poole said: “This is concerning the males, for women converted to God as Ruth were able to marry Israelites. … Thus, the women are excluded because the women held no office.”18 Therefore, what is only prohibited in Deut 23:3 are the Ammonite and Moabite males, and this makes more sense given that v.1 only referred to males. Furthermore, I make no objection to certain foreign wives being wives of native Israelites. This clearly happened with Rahab and Ruth and to others according to the allowance found in Deut 21:10-14. Please recall that the ethnicity of a mixed marriage went with the male. Also, males were the head of the home, not the women (as it common in today’s American egalitarian culture). We know that the ethnicity went with the man from Joseph (who had sons from an Egyptian woman) and Moses (who married a Midianite woman) and from Jepthah the Gileadite (Judges 11:1-2). He was the son of an Israelite man (probably the tribe of Manasseh) but a foreign woman.

(10) The reasons given for why the Ammonite and the Moabite must not enter the congregation are related to national concerns, not ceremonial.

Both the Moabite people and the Ammonite people harmed the nation of Israel in their lack of hospitality or by direct cursing. Although the Ammonite misdeed is not recorded in the Scriptures, the Moabite deed is recorded in Num 22:2f. Thus, it would make sense that the prohibition laid down here pertains to the state (national), not the church of Israel (ceremonial).

Would God, even in the Old Testament, forbid the converts from these two branches of Abraham’s seed from ever participating in the ordinances of grace? Perhaps, but I doubt it. David had mighty men in his army from both nations (see 1 Chr 11:39,46) and it is extremely likely that these foreign warriors were loyal to the true King because they were converts to the true religion. However, just because they served in the army, does not necessitate that they were citizens of the state of Israel.

Section Two:

With these reasons provided for why the phrase to “enter into the congregation of the Lord” is a reference to civil membership, I continue with v.7-8. Below, I will show the “near of kin” principle and with this principle (and the next), I will address the heart of the matter.

“7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. 8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.”

The Edomites were sons of Isaac through Esau (Gen 25:19-26, 36:9). Thus, they were close in kin to Israel and could be rightly called “cousins.” This is not the case with all the other surrounding nations (Tyre, Sidon, Philistines, Midian). Ammon and Moab were more distantly related through Lot who was Abraham’s nephew. Abraham’s father was Terah who had three sons: Abraham, Nahor and Haran (who was Lot’s father—see Gen 11:27-31). The Edomite is said to be “thy brother” to Israel, and this is the reason given for their incorporation. The Ammonite and Moabite, despite being distantly related, were not given this status. This is a biblical “window” into what near of kin means for a host nation.

If we could go back in time, I assert that it was lawful for southern Europeans to immigrate into the USA as they did in the 19^th century, if only they were Protestants. I will give a brief history in my next article, but the American colonies were forged by Northwestern Europeans: Englishmen, Ulster Scots, and some German, French and Dutch Protestants who learned to speak English. It is certainly true, therefore, that Northwestern Europeans are “near of kin” to Americans. But given the sinful history of America on immigration—the Christian magistrate’s prudence would certainly have weight on the matter in receiving Southern Europeans. But it is sufficient to say that Africans, Somalians, Japanese and Mexicans are not “near of kin” to the White English-speaking people who settled the USA during the colonial period.

#4 – Another class of lawful immigrants are those who have adopted the Christian religion and who, regardless of nearness of kin, have done a national service to the host nation.

This principle assumes the exegesis in the previous section regarding the “congregation of the Lord” and it directly applies the general equity of v.7-8 regarding the Egyptian. Again, v.7-8 reads, “thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation.”

The Egyptians had, despite their severe mistreatment of the Hebrews in later years, opened their land and gave them Goshen to dwell in and gave them harbor during a severe famine (Gen 45:9-10). This kindness was not forgotten by God. Thus, the principle that when one nation does another nation a great service and shows kindness, their men could possibly join in the third generation after successful assimilation, even if not near in kin (the Egyptians were Hamites). These cases would undoubtedly be rare so as to not change the blood makeup of the nation as a whole. But the principle still needs to be held. It is difficult for me to find a parallel in USA history that would be a reasonable application of the “general equity” regarding the “Egyptian” in Deut 23. But I will attempt it.

Certain tribes of Iraqis helped the US Army with interpreters during the Global War on Terror. I now oppose our involvement in that war, but I am trying to be reasonable. The native Americans of the Navajo tribe helped America defeat the Japanese in WWII and are famous for being the “Windtalkers.” Were there Koreans that helped America during the Korean War? What about the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War? Do we want to include that as doing us a national favor? Especially if we understand those wars to be unjust or unwise in some way? I am not sure, but I am trying to be reasonable.

Again, just because a service was done, does not mean all must come in or that a particular nation should be eligible for citizenship as the Egyptians were in Israel. Others could find more examples perhaps, but this suffices it to show a few possible examples. Also, the assumption is that the people of these nations remain allies and that they are converted to Christianity.

But what have the Chinese, the Indians of India, or Muslim Arabs done for America? Should Somalians come in? Should all people come in? Under this biblical principle, only those who had performed a real national service to the USA (and converted to the Protestant faith)19 would be eligible. Furthermore, it is not enough for them to have individually performed a national service, but for their nation to have done so. This is why it is hard to find a real parallel in the history of the USA to what Egypt did for Israel.

Is this type of thinking applied to today’s immigration laws? No! Instead, liberal politicians who are anti-Christian and anti-White, have deliberately brought mass immigration into the country to gain voters, forge their “coalition of the fringes”20 and to purposefully make America less White (and less Christian), all in the name of a so called “nation of immigrants” ideology. And what makes it worse is that many evangelical Christians think they are supposed to allow their own race and ethnicity to be diminished. This is not biblical! These recent immigration policies ought to be rejected by all God-fearing and Bible-believing Christians for the reasons I have stated.

Conclusion

These are the biblical principles that inform any nation’s laws on who should be allowed to naturalize into a host nation. Put briefly: (1) those who are near of kin to the host nation and (2) foreigners of a nation which has performed some national service to the host nation. In both cases, they must be converts to Christianity and assimilated into the culture. This is hardly what we see today. But before I give any more applications to the situation in America, it is best first to see the history of immigration in the US. This will be the topic of my next article.

Thus far in my series I have covered the doctrine of race. I now shift to a related but different topic—the nation. In this article I will answer the question, “What is a nation?” In later articles, I hope to address a few contemporary issues facing America such as immigration and inter-racial marriage. But before I directly address these issues, the ground work must be laid, namely, the idea of a nation must be properly understood.

The order of my articles is important. Before one can properly understand what a nation is, he must understand the doctrine of race. As I have mentioned, a race is essentially a people of common ancestry. A nation is fundamentally the same thing—it is a small race. The historic nations of Britain, Ireland, Scotland, and Germany had their own pedigree, but they are all White. Likewise, a nation is fundamentally one ethnicity. Ethno-nationalism is the plain teaching both of nature and of the Scriptures. This has been hotly debated in recent years, but only because of recent Marxist lies that have infiltrated the minds of Americans and Westerners in recent times.

So, what is a nation? My definition is simple.

A nation is a people of common blood, land, government, religion1, and language.

I find my starting point, not in nature, but in the Scripture. Nature teaches this also, however, because the Scriptures make it clear, I will focus on the biblical data. Furthermore, I will refrain on making any applications or pointing out any implications of my definition to the modern situation in America. These applications will come in a later article once all matters are properly understood from the Scripture.

Genesis 10 is the starting point for nations—commonly called “the table of the nations.”2 Genesis 10 lists the descendants of the three sons of Noah: Japheth, Ham and Shem. The last verse (v.32) in this chapter plainly states what the contents of the chapter is about, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” Thus, it is right for us to examine this chapter to determine what a “nation” is as a concept. This way of looking at Genesis 10 makes sense in part because the book of Genesis is a book of “beginnings.” As the nations developed, coming from the loins of Noah, we ought to expect Genesis to describe that event.

It also happens to be the interpretation of reliable commentators. Matthew Poole writes, “This chapter… hath indeed great and manifold uses. 1. To show the true original of the several nations… and thereby to manifest the providence of God in the government of the world…”3

This article will consist in proving and explaining the 5 essential parts of a nation: (1) a common blood (2) a common land (3) a common government (4) a common religion and (5) a common language. I will also include a discussion (6) on culture and the nation. I then will mention (7) a few quotes from respected men in the past that agree with my position before I conclude.

1 – A Common Blood

This is the most controversial aspect of my definition and will thus be the longest section. By common blood, I mean that a nation—in its most fundamental aspect—is a large extended family of blood relatives.

In modern times, authors have diminished this most essential component. Some argue for nations as “propositions.” These advocates say that anyone can immigrate and become a member of a nation if they only adhere to a set of ideals or principles. If this is the case, then the whole world consists of (a) Americans and (b) potential Americans. Frankly, it is ridiculous.

Other authors have gone to less extremes but have still failed to sufficiently appreciate the idea of a common blood. Dr. Stephen Wolfe is the most popular and recent author to speak this way. Although he has been strongly critiqued for being a “Kinist,” yet he denies that term for himself. However, he does come close. He communicates his understanding of a nation in the below quotes. To understand the below quotes one must know that Dr. Wolfe treats the idea of “ethnicity” and “nation” as almost synonymous terms.4

“Ethnicity, as something experienced, is familiarity with others based in common language, manners, customs, stories, taboos, rituals, calendars, social expectations, duties, loves, and religion.”5

“Nations today are not built around bloodlines stretching back to arch-patriarchs. But blood relations remain relevant to nations, when referring to one’s ancestral connection to a people and place back to time immemorial... but the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place…Blood relations matter for your ethnicity...”6

The problem with Dr. Wolfe, contrary to his egalitarian critics, is that he does not go far enough with the concept of a common blood. Ethno-nationalism is God’s way, as I hope to now prove from Scripture.

Genesis 10 lists the sons of Noah and their descendants. In the reading of the chapter, it becomes obvious that the descendants of these men married within their families in large measure. There was not the cross-pollination of Shemites with Hamites, and Japhethites with the other two. Part of the reason why I know this is true is because Genesis 10 anticipates the confusion of the languages of the nations in Genesis 11 at the Tower of Babel. These patriarchs were dispersed across the whole earth “after their families” (v.5, 20, 31). In fact, in one case, the descendants of one man are known after their chief grandfather. Regarding Canaan, it says (v.18), “… and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.” I remind my readers that the airplane, train, and steamboat had not been invented. These families were scattered abroad and married those near to them. As a result, a common blood relation developed in the nation. It is really that simple.

Furthermore, in Scripture, nations are specifically described as families. The “family of Egypt” (Zech 14:18) and “all the kindreds (families) of the nations” (Ps 22:27). Sometimes in Scripture, a nation is simply called a family (Genesis 12:3, 28:14; Jeremiah 10:25, Zech 14:17, Amos 3:2). What is a family but those of close blood relation? Furthermore, consider the nation of the Edomites. How can Moses describe Edom as the “brother” of Israel (Deut 23:7), if those belonging to that nation are not of a common blood and near of kin to Israel? The Edomites, themselves, were a nation related to Israel by blood through the line of Esau—the brother of Jacob (Gen 36:1,8).

Furthermore, the nations of the Bible had a common blood. Hence, in Genesis 10, the sons of Canaan were called, “the families of the Canaanites.” Egypt was made up of Egyptians, Philistine was made of Philistines, Edom was made of Edomites etc.7 In Gen 21:13, God said of Abraham’s son Ishmael, “And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.” In Gen 25:16, we read of the 12 sons of Ishmael, “These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles; twelve princes according to their nations.” Very similar language is used here as in Gen 10:5, 20, 31. Later, the Scriptures refer to these nations as “Ishmaelites” (Judges 8:24, Psalm 83:6). The meaning is obvious. They all descended from one man, and thus, all had a common blood. Whatever “admixture” occurred did not impact the overall common blood of these people.8

It is no different when we come to the premier nation—Israel. Israel was composed of the 12 sons of Jacob. They were forced to flee to Egypt and live in the land of Goshen and therein populated into a large multitude. They married within their families and tribes. They did not inter-marry with the Egyptians (Gen 43:32, Ex 1:15-21). They were segregated by blood and soil. It becomes clear, in later revelation, that the 12 tribes were also composed of families showing that intra-marriage within the tribe was the norm (Josh 7:16-18). Thus, it would be natural for the Scriptures to refer to the “the whole family” or “families” of Israel (Amos 3:1, Jer 31:1). Joseph’s sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) were half Egyptian. Yet, their descendants did not continue to marry Egyptians, but within the tribes of Israel. The nation of Israel was born during the time of sojourning in the land of Goshen.

Furthermore, when David was approached, after the death of Saul, by the elders of the tribes of Israel, they said to him, “Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh” (1 Chr 11:1). Although they were not all from the tribe of Judah, they all came from one father—Jacob.9 The same could be said about Abimelech of the tribe of Manasseh (Judges 9:2, “… remember also that I am your bone and your flesh.”). Even by the time of Nehemiah, the poor Jews could speak about the rich Jews, “Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children…” (Neh 5:5). Obviously, what is in view here is not a mere spiritual “brother” but a brother by blood. Nehemiah confirms this in v.7 (and 8), “Ye exact usury, every one of his brother.”10

Furthermore, regarding Israel, the mere presence of foreigners and strangers implied the common blood of the nation. In several places in Scripture, the native-born are set in contrast with the foreigners and the strangers (Exodus 12:48–49, Leviticus 19:33–34, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:14–16, Numbers 15:29). In what sense were they strangers or foreigners? They were so by blood—not being from the 12 tribes in ancestry. To be a stranger (or foreigner) in Israel implied, by definition, that the person in view was not of the same blood as the host nation (Israel). Gen 17:12b, “… he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.” (see also Matt 17:25).11

It is important to note, especially regarding the Passover legislation in Exodus 12:48-49, that the foreigners and strangers that were to be treated just as the homeborn, were not included in the nation of Israel but in the church of Israel. It was one thing for a foreigner to be converted and have access to the worship of the true God (Circumcision and Passover), it was another thing for him to be naturalized. Israel was both a church and a state.12 Just because a stranger was allowed to worship, did not mean they were given inheritance in the land, the right to vote, to rule and the right to marry other Israelites.

Finally, the law regarding the king of Israel implies the blood difference between strangers and the native born. Deut 17:14-15 says:

“When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.”

Although in modern English idiom13, one may greet a non-blood relative, “Hey brother,” the usage here is clearly one of blood for it is set against the “stranger.” Thus, this passage shows that the nation had a common blood from which they could elect a king. If he was not a blood relative, he was ineligible.

Two Exceptions:

There are two main exceptions to my material thus far. First, you have, in the life and legislation of Israel, the presence of foreign wives either by extraordinary cases (Ruth, Zipporah, Asenath, Rahab, etc.) or by captured foreign women (Deut 21:10-13).14 In regard to the first category, it must be remarked that these were extraordinary cases and also not numerous. Joseph and Moses were removed from their people. Ruth’s first husband should have never left the promised land. Rahab, likewise, was extraordinary in relation to her help in the conquest of Jericho. In the cases of Ruth and Rahab, God was showing his mercy to the gentiles. I will speak on inter-racial marriage in subsequent article, but this suffices for my purpose regarding the nation.

In the other case of captured foreign women in war, it is important to note that this legislation (Deut 21:10-13) only applied to women captured from nations “very far off” from Israel (Deut 20:14-15). Those nations immediately in the land of Israel were to be exterminated (Deut 20:16). If they were not, then it was against God’s law. Unfortunately, God’s people did not exterminate all the original Canaanites.15 Furthermore, it was only during the reigns of David and Solomon that this legislation would have been rightly taken into effect, for only these two kings conquered neighboring nations in any great significance. Other kings won battles and held certain nations under tribute for short times but did not have a vast kingdom of vassal nations. Therefore, a lawful application of Deut 21:10-13, in the life of Israel, did not happen frequently. Marrying a native Israelite women would have been the norm, and in some cases was strictly required (See Num 36:1–12 and Lev 21:13–14 along with Neh 7:63).

The second objection pertains to the fact that the law of Moses did allow foreigners to be naturalized as Israelites and become full citizens of the state (Deut 23:7-8).16 This passage will be taken up at length when I address biblical laws of immigration and naturalization. However, for now it is important to note that not all foreigners and strangers were eligible for naturalization. There were only two types of foreigners that were eligible: (a) those near of kin to Israel—Edomites and (b) those foreigners who had performed a national service to Israel—Egyptians. The mass of foreigners who came to Israel—seeking the true God or displaced by war—were not eligible. They were permanent sojourners (i.e. non-citizens).

The question arises, “How many foreigners entered into Israel and would this have greatly affected the common blood principle?” The answer is that very few would have rightly joined and the common blood principle would not have changed. How so?

Consider that only about 8-9% of the total population consisted of sojourners. I get this percentage by comparing the census of David in 1 Chr 21:5-6, with the number of strangers given by Solomon a short time after (2 Chr 2:17-18). If we modestly assume that Benjamin and Levi had 75,000 men (for they were not numbered in David’s census—1 Chr 21:6) then the total number of men in Israel would be 1.7 million. The number of strangers (men only is presumed) in Solomon’s day was only 153,600 (2 Chr 2:17-18). Do the math and you will discover that the percentage of non-Israelites in Israel’s land was about 8-9%.

Again, however, we must realize that not all these strangers were eligible for incorporation into the state of Israel. An example of this were the Gibeonites who remained permanent slaves (See Nethinims – 1 Chr 9:2, Joshua 9). Instead, many of the strangers were not Edomites (close in kin to Israel) nor had performed a great national service (like the Egyptians). Although we can obtain a good idea of how many strangers were in the land, it is probably impossible to have an accurate percentage of strangers that were naturalized into the nation. But it must have been only a portion of the 8-9%. Thus, the number of strangers did not greatly change the common blood principle of the nation. Israel was made up of Israelites, just as the other nations. Furthermore, half of the “strangers” were near cousins and would not have greatly changed the racial makeup of the nation anyways (unlike Egyptians who were Hamites).

In my logic, I assume that my reader understands that this reasoning from Scripture is based upon these passages being prescriptive of what nations are to be like today and not merely descriptive of what nations were in the past. It is prescriptive in that it repeats by divine authority what is assumed as already known by common sense. Therefore, it would be foolish to take Genesis 10 as merely a description of what nations did then and to assume that nations can do something else now. Ethno-nationalism is God’s way and He is making it clear in His word.

I also assume the principle that the judicial laws of Israel are to be followed today by nations according to their “general equity” (see Westminster Confession of Faith ch. 19, section 4 and Deut 25:4, 1 Cor 9:8, 1 Tim 5:18).

2 – A Common Land

Nations have borders, which means that they have their own divinely appointed place to live. There is an analogy to the family. Families live in a house and have property (more or less). In Genesis 10 we see that the nations lived, “in their lands” (v.5,20,31). Moses specifically includes the boarder of Canaan in v.19. These nations dispersed after the Tower of Babel, and according to God’s wise providence, settled in lands throughout the whole earth (Gen 9:19).

Israel was no different. They had their prescribed land as was clearly delineated when Joshua delivered to each tribe its inheritance (Josh 13-19). It is helpful to note that God specifically allotted and protected (at least for a time) specific lands for Israel’s distant cousins: Edom, Moab and Ammon (Deut 2:4-5,9,19). God forbid them to take their land for He had given it to them for a possession.17

This reality, that nations have their own place, is confirmed by Moses in Deut 32:8, “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people …” Paul commented on this ancient history in Acts 17:26 and makes it clear that this allotment of land was by God’s design, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation…” God is the one controlling the nations and appointing, in His providence, the “bounds of their habitation.”

The allotment of the nations into their lands was not a haphazard or random thing. In the unity of their humanity, God has made a diversity of nations and dispersed them across the earth. In some places, the Bible says that God “divided” the nations (Gen 10:32, Deut 32:8). A modern term for this idea is that God “segregated” the nations. Yes, God is a segregationist. This word may invoke images and thoughts into my readers mind which I do not intend, but the word needs to be recovered because it is helpful in describing a biblical idea. The amalgamation of peoples into one land is not God’s way. It is a Marxist, anti-biblical, and Egalitarian perspective that needs to be eradicated from the mind of God’s people. I will speak more on “segregation” in a later article, but now it simply needs to be pointed out as a divinely approved concept.

3 – A Common Government

God has ordained three institutions: the nation, the government and the church. A nation must be ruled according to this civil institution ordained by God and these rulers must establish civil order. This is plain enough from Genesis 10 and other Scripture. Genesis 10 does not make it explicit but implicit. Patriarchy is the way of God and of the Bible. The men only are listed at the head of their family because (to give one implication) they ruled their family. Nimrod is mentioned as having a kingdom (v.9-10) which greatly supports my assumption. But Patriarchy is the way, and by that I mean that men rule the family and chief men (civil rulers) rule over other families. Abraham was a king of sort, ruling both his house and slaves, but also had influence upon those whom he encountered. Israel was ruled by the elders in Egypt (Ex 4:29) and later, more explicitly, by Moses’s command (Ex 18:13-27). After the life of Joshua, the elders continued to rule the people. Then God raised up judges to function like a king. Eventually, God raised up David and his sons to be kings and reign in what may be called a limited monarchy.

It was no different, in substance, as the other nations. In fact, just as Scripture often uses “family” as a synonym with “nation,” so it also does with the word “kingdom” (Jer 27:8, 1 Kings 18:10, Ps 105:13). A Kingdom implies authority and rule, normally by a king. Thus, a “kingdom” implies a government, not just over a family but a large group of related families (the nation or tribe).

It is important to note, by way of answering an objection, that a nation does not cease to exist simply because it is a vassal state. Israel was a nation in Egypt before the Exodus. The elders had some level of local control. It was the same with the Jews in captivity and later under Roman rule in the time of Christ. Thus Paul said in Acts 26:4, “My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews.” He was a citizen of the Roman empire (Acts 22:25), but still belonged to his own nation (the Jews). The Jews were something of a vassal state, but still a state or nation. Furthermore, we should understand a “tribe” to be a small nation with local autonomy and rule.18 Thus, a nation with a common blood and common land also has a common government giving life, personality, and action to that nation.

4 – A Common Religion

The modern mind may also object to this idea, but it is thoroughly biblical. Take America as an example. America’s first amendment in the Bill of Rights states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” However, it is still clear that America (as other Western secular nations) has one common religion—Humanism.19 Man is the measure of truth and is therefore set up as a god in the hearts of its citizens. It must be said that I do not think that the first amendment was intended to be used the way it has been used in recent times. However, it is still true today that America is a theocracy. All nations are theocratic. They all have a god or a set of acceptable gods. It is simply an outworking of the nature of man as being made in God’s image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. Man is not only a rational creature, but a worshipping creature. He will worship something both individually and nationally.

We see this development clearly in Scripture. The nations had a god or a host of acceptable false gods. Moab worshiped Chemosh (Numbers 21:29, 1 Kings 11:7), Ammon worshipped Molech (1 Kings 11:7, 2 Kings 23:13), Philistia worshipped Dagon (Judges 16:23, 1 Samuel 5:2–7), Edom had their own gods (2 Chronicles 25:20), Canaanites worshiped Baal and Asherah (Judges 2:11–13,1 Kings 18:18–40, Numbers 25:3), Aram/Syria worshipped Baal Rimmon (2 Kings 5:18), Egypt worshipped many gods (Exodus 12:12). Judges 10:6 clearly demonstrates that the nations had national gods, “And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the Lord, and served not him.”

The real question is not so much whether a nation has a specific religious component, but whether it must be specifically Christian. This is the idea that is at the heart of the Christian Nationalist (CN) movement. Not all advocates of CN believe in ethno-nationalism (as I have described above), but all believe that nations (including America) are to be specifically Christian and that the government is to sanction Christianity to the exclusion of all others. Is this biblical?

Across Christendom, there are many differences: sacraments, government, worship, doctrine, etc. In some cases, the differences can be complicated and less clear to the average Bible reader. Some may think the issue of state-sanctioned religion may be a complicated matter. However, this issue is very clear. It has been an historic blind spot in the American mind, and it is also exceedingly unpopular. But it is still very clear from Scripture to anyone who is simply willing to consider it. I challenge my readers to be firmly committed to the biblical requirement for a civil magistrate to establish and uphold the true religion in his office.

I set forth nothing new or different in substance than what all Protestants historically believed during the reformation. The Westminster Confession of Faith ch. 23, paragraph 3 is one example of this Protestant tradition:

“The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed...”

The government does not have the right of the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19). In other words, the government does not have the right or responsibility to preach the gospel, administer the sacraments, censure the people of God, appoint pastors, evangelize the nation, etc. However, God has given the government the power of the sword (Rom 13:4)—a symbol of punishment and force. Although the realm of the church and the state are different, they are both under Christ and are both to serve Him.

National religion is further manifested in Psalm 2. The history of the world could be summarized as nations revolting against Christ, and Him putting them down (unless they submit to Him). In Psalm 2, God comes to the nations as represented by their rulers and says, (v.10-12) “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” Furthermore, we are told in Psalm 33:12, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…” How can a nation have God to be their Lord and their national leaders not openly acknowledge and follow Christ? In Isa 49:23, the Kings of the earth are to support and defend the church, “And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers…” All authority has been given to Christ, and He reigns over the nations as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Christian Nationalism is just basic Scriptural teaching that has been forgotten in the recent centuries of declension in the Western church, especially in the United States.

If someone still objects to this idea, then they are left with a strange conundrum when it comes to the biblical example of pagan Kings. What else was the king of Nineveh to do at the preaching of Jonah? And how were his actions anything less than a call to his people to repent, believe and serve the true God (Jonah 3:5-9)? And how is this not, in substance, exactly what CN advocates call for? If one rejects my doctrine, they have no real basis for defending the king of Nineveh. Furthermore, how are they to understand the actions of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-4, 7-11), Darius (Ezra 6:1-12, 14; 2 Chr 36:22-23) and Artaxerxes, Kings of Persia (Ezra 6:14, 7:6, 12-13, 21, 23, 25)? These Kings established the true religion in the land of Israel. And since Darius was specifically “stirred up” by the Spirit of God, his actions could not have been inconsistent with the power of the magistrate. If one objects saying that these kings acted under a direct command of God, then I say—that is the whole point! God desires the kings of the earth to establish the true religion (Ezra 6:22, 9:9).

Furthermore, on what basis did John the Baptist rebuke king Herod for marrying contrary to God’s law (Mark 6:17-18)? And on what basis would someone object to this by separating the personal life of Herod from His office or the first table of the law from the second table? Kings are subject to Christ not only in their personal life, but in their public life and that subjugation includes both tables of the law (i.e. all 10 commandments of Moses).

Another objection to this doctrine is for one to plead “liberty of conscience.” However, this too will prove ineffectual. First, God does not give man the freedom of conscience as it is often understood today. Instead, He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe in Christ (Acts 17:30). It is true that the government, as the custodian of the sword, cannot command the soul. The church, especially by her ministers, propagates the kingdom of God by the preaching of the word.20 However, the government can command the body. Therefore, although the government cannot force a Muslim in America to convert to the true religion, the government can forbid him (by force) from worshiping idols, building mosques, from breaking the sabbath (outwardly) and doing other things contrary to God’s law.21

5 – A Common Language

This is perhaps the most obvious thing in Genesis 10. It anticipates the Tower of Babel wherein God divided the nations by confusing their tongue or language. Thus, three times, the nations of the earth are established “after their tongues” (v.5,20,31). The Tower of Babel proves the importance of a common language for a nation to thrive. The people coming from Babel grouped together because they could understand one another. Israel was no different. Despite local dialects (Judges 12:5-6), they all spoke Hebrew.

How else will a nation take on a national life, conduct commerce, and live peaceably with one another if they cannot communicate with each other? Man is a social creature and must have fellowship and community. It is God’s natural order.

In my line of work, I have come across numerous foreigners. Some of them can speak English well enough to get on, but some cannot speak English at all. My line of work immediately stops when I encounter these foreigners. I cannot perform my job if I cannot communicate and connect with my customers. Although I have many problems with such foreigners being here, it is (at the very least) a huge obstacle for the citizens of the nation not to speak the same language. America is breaking at the seams, in part, because of the diversity of language.

6 – A Common Culture

This part is an outgrowth of the 5 essential parts (blood, land, government, religion and language). It is not clear exactly where “culture” comes from. Race and religion influence it, but so does language and land. And although the concept of culture does not directly appear in Genesis 10 (nor clearly delineated in any Scripture), it is a truth of our experience. Furthermore, it is helpful to give it a specific place in this discussion because of its visibility and importance in most people’s minds.

If a nation is an extended family with common language, land and government, then they will develop their own culture. It is the same with families, but at a smaller level.

I define culture as a set of accepted social and behavioral norms. Culture touches the issues of food, music, literature, idioms, hobbies, etc. American football is a great example. Many American males have never played the sport, but they at least grew up cheering for their local high-school and college teams or played in the marching band. It unites communities around a beloved recreation. The sport is exclusive to America.

In the Southern states, many Americans still today train their kids to say “Yes, Sir” and “No, Ma’am”. Southerners drink sweet tea and listen to country music. In Texas, they raise cows and have rodeos. In the Midwest, they wrestle and grow corn. These things shape lives and create common experiences which produce a common culture. It is customary for the groom to ask the bride’s father for her hand in marriage (this is also a biblical precept). We symbolize marriage with a ring. Most of these things are purely cultural and (more or less) indifferent to Scriptural commands. But the point is that all these things help strengthen a nation in so far as the citizens of the nation have the same culture. And it is good for a nation to have a common culture—even if some of these cultural norms are somewhat regional.

Again, regardless of the more fundamental problems of race diversity, it is a great weakness of America to have so many cultures and subcultures. Importing a Mexican restaurant is one thing, but importing millions of Mexicans is another thing. For America to be strong, one thing that needs to happen is to consolidate her cultural heritage. I go a lot further than Dr. Wolfe in his concept of a nation. However, he is correct to emphasize how America needs to drastically decrease immigration so that it can consolidate a common culture.22 Multi-culturalism simply doesn’t work. A house divided against itself will not stand (Luke 11:17).

7 – Quotes from the Past

In my reading of old authors (Protestant and Reformed), the word “nation” carried with it the “common blood” idea. It was the most important competent of the word. The nation of England was inhabited by the English, Scotland by the Scots, Ireland by the Irish. It was just common sense. And so, when past authors spoke about nations, they assumed this common blood principle.

In today’s world, the word “nation” (ethnos) has been hijacked by Jewish and Marxist deceivers. Turretin makes the same point about how the Romanists hijacked the word “Justification” (justificare). He wrote, “From a false and preposterous explanation of the word, the truth of the thing itself has been wonderfully obscured.”23

This is exactly what has happened in modern days with the word “nation.” Because America has slowly abandoned the truth of the Bible, American Christians are forced to change the meaning of the word “nation” to fit their circumstances. Consequently, many Christians in America are confused, and the word needs to be recovered.

Although past authors assumed that blood was basic to the definition of a nation, there are still witnesses specifically to this idea and not only to the common blood principle, but to the other components of a nation. Consider these quotes from both the civil and ecclesiastical realm:

Quotes from civil rulers:

George Washington stated his understanding in his famous farewell address. It is important to note that George Washington spoke to only White men and that only White men were naturalized as US citizens according to the 1790 law of naturalization.

“For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts—of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”24

John Jay (1745-1829), a founding father and first Chief Justice of the United States, said:

“Providence [had] been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”25

Grover Cleveland (1837-1908), the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, said:

“(The) experiment of blending the social habits and mutual race idiosyncrasies of the Chinese laboring classes with those of the great body of the people of the United States… [has been] proved … in every sense unwise, impolitic, and injurious to both nations.”26

Congressman Albert Johnson, the chief author of the 1924 immigration act which greatly limited immigration, wrote:

“Today, instead of a well-knit homogenous citizenry, we have a body politic made up of all and every diverse element. Today, instead of a nation descended from generations of freemen bred to a knowledge of the principles and practice of self-government… we have a heterogeneous population no small proportion of which is sprung from races that, throughout the centuries, have known no liberty at all…. in other words, our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood… it is no wonder therefore, that the myth of the melting pot has been discredited … the United States is our land … We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended.”27

Quotes from Ecclesiastical teachers:

Notice the implications of John Knox’s own understanding:

“For if he would not permit that the inheritance of the children of Israel should pass from one tribe to another by the marriage of any daughter, notwithstanding that they were all one people, all spake one tongue, all were descended of one father, and all did profess one God and one religion…”28

In this quote, he is arguing for one reason why Scotsmen should not have a ruler over them from “the hands of strangers” (bloody Mary). He reasons from the text concerning the inheritance of the daughters of Zelophehad. The discerning reader will recognize that the bold font is how Knox understands the tribe of Manasseh—which is essentially the same thing as a nation. Tribes are small nations (reference Judah anointing David King over the house of Judah at Hebron, 2 Sam 2:1-4). It is also important to note that he saw Bloody Mary as a stranger, although she was White.

James Henley Thornwell, the prominent Southern Presbyterian wrote:

“To combine in the same government contradictory systems of faith is as hopelessly impossible as to constitute into one State men of different races and languages…When we came out of the Revolution, it is admitted on all hands that we were separate and independent States. Each was sovereign—that is, completely a nation in itself;… the people were of one blood, one language, one religion. They were, in short, one race.”29

Samuel Rutherford assumed the principle of a common blood relation in the below quote. He did not emphasize it for he did not live in an egalitarian age.

“... for the paternal government, or a fatherly power of parents over their families, and a politic power of a magistrate over many families, are powers different in nature...”30

Note that Rutherford sees a nation or the “power of a magistrate” to be governing over “many families.” In other words, a nation is a large extended family. In Rutherford’s day, marxist and egalitarian theories of immigration did not exist. The “many families” he refers to were connected by a common blood.

Conclusion

A nation is a people with a common blood, land, government, religion and language. Stemming from these 5 essential components, we can see from experience the importance of a nation having a common culture. This definition was defended by Scripture and especially from Genesis 10 and supported by various respected men in the civil and ecclesiastical realms.

As I mentioned, I have not applied this principle to our current situation in the West or in my own nation of America. Before I do that, I must set forth the biblical laws of immigration (or naturalization) from Deut 23:7-8, explain the history of immigration in America, and address the topic of inter-racial marriage. Therefore, the next article will address the issue of naturalization of foreigners into a nation.

Thus far in my series of articles I have argued from Scripture and nature that race is real and that the races of men (White, Black, etc.) are not equal in natural characteristics. However, one key question remains: “Are these natural characteristics immutable?”

This question seems to be at the heart of the offense taken by modern egalitarians towards Kinists and Race Realists. In other words, it is one thing to say that race is real and that the races differ in natural characteristics (intelligence, athleticism, dispositions, etc.). Some of my opponents are willing to go this far. But it is another thing to say that race is real and that the natural characteristics of the different races are—in some sense—immutable.

Michael Spangler is one example of the latter. He wrote, “Race realism is the recognition that mankind is divided into distinct races, that the differences between the races are large and relatively permanent…”1

As a response to this type of teaching in today’s churches, last summer the ARP issued a declaration of condemnation which was sanctioned by two other reformed denominations—the PCA and the RPCNA.

“That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.”2

So how should we understand the immutability of race? Is this declaration by the ARP correct or are those that teach some form of immutability correct? In this article, I argue for a specific type of racial immutability. But one clarification is helpful from the beginning.

Under the locus of the doctrine of God, theologians are accustomed to speak of God’s immutability. Only God is immutable—absolutely speaking. Malachi 3:6, “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” God is almighty, omniscient and omnipresent. He is most just, wise, loving and holy. God is a perfect being and, therefore, cannot improve or diminish. He is absolutely immutable. But the races of men are not absolutely immutable. They are, instead, practically immutable. My meaning will become clearer as I deal with Scripture and with objections.

This article has four parts: (1) comments from Jer 13:23 (2) comments from commentators (3) dealing with objections and (4) comments on the recent ARP declaration.

1 - Comments on Jeremiah 13:23

Scripture does speak to the immutability of racial characteristics: Jeremiah 13:23, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”

If you read this verse in context, Jeremiah is not speaking directly on racial characteristics. Instead, he is rebuking the stubborn people of God. Judah, at the time of this rebuke, had been in rebellion against the LORD for generations. They utterly refused to repent and return to the LORD.

(v.10-11) “This evil people, which refuse to hear my words…but they would not hear.”

(v.15,17) “Hear ye, and give ear, be not proud…But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride…”

Some have pointed to this chapter and v.23 as proof of the total depravity of man—man’s inability to convert themselves and obey God due to his corrupt heart.3 Regardless, it is evident that both God and Jeremiah are angry at the hard heart of Judah.

Jeremiah then describes Judah’s spiritual hardness with two illustrations from nature. Jeremiah knows that an Ethiopian cannot change the color of his skin, nor a leopard his spots. It is impossible.

It is important to note that the color of one’s skin is not the only natural characteristic of one’s particular race. It may be the prominent one—for it is the most visible—but it is not the only one. We do well to infer that the other natural characteristics of race (habits, tastes, mental capability, physical strengths, etc.) are also immutable. Consider the language of v.23. He does not say, “Can a Black man change his skin?” Instead, he speaks of an Ethiopian—an ethnicity. Notice I did not include moral dispositions as part of this immutable natural characteristic. Although, I believe that races and ethnicities have unique moral dispositions, I would not consider them “practically” immutable. Thanks be to God that, by the Holy Spirit, those moral dispositions which are sinful can be changed more rapidly than the other natural characteristics. The soul and the body are the not the same.

However, even after a great revival of religion, a specific ethnicity or race may still have remnants of their sinful moral dispositions and those remnants may still set them apart from other ethnicities. This is analogous to the experience of individual Christians who are converted in adulthood. Yes, the converted Christian is a new creation, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor 5:17). But biblical examples and experience inform us of the full meaning of 2 Cor 5:17. Individual Christians who struggled with certain sinful dispositions (anger, deceit, pride, lust, etc.) before their conversion, may wrestle with these same dispositions throughout their life. By the Spirit, they are not slaves to such sins, and may gain great victory in their life. But the struggle with sin still goes on (see Romans 7), and that struggle will include sins peculiar to them. This applies to races and ethnicities also. Charles Hodge is helpful:

“It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral.”4

And these aforementioned natural characteristics are part of one’s racial identity. God’s providence has taken its course: as Shedd said, “The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”5

Furthermore, this work of providence has, practically speaking, reached a stasis. We are who God intended us to be—apart from the gospel. And, as I have said in a previous article,6 the gospel will not change one’s natural capacity for intelligence or their natural capacity to jump high. The gospel makes people godly, not smart, nor athletic. Although Christian diligence does contribute to one’s natural abilities (intelligence, athleticism, etc.), it will quickly hit a limit set by nature.

For example, it did not matter how hard I trained, I was not going to run a 4.4 in the 40-yard dash in high school. Many other White boys were just like me. But many Black boys were able to achieve this with moderate training. It is just one clear characteristic of the two races. I will speak more on this immutability under objections below, but this above discussion on Jer 13:23 is the basic biblical exegesis required to see my point.

2- Comments from the Commentators

All these commentators state my point—more or less. Calvin makes it the most explicit by using the word “inherent.” These men spoke on this issue without any problem. Although, the main point of Jer 13:23 is to serve as a warning against the stubbornness of sin and how it serves to further harden hearts by custom, we cannot neglect the obvious illustration from nature that supports the idea of immutability. Scripture is speaking directly to what we can observe by nature and uses that natural principle to reinforce the idea of impossibility or immutability.

A. John Trapp (1601-1660), the Anglican Bible commentator:

“Proverbial speeches arguing a very great difficulty, if not an utter impossibility. Aethiopem abluo ut candidum reddam, said Diogenes, when he reproved an ill man to no purpose; I do but wash a blackamore.”7

The Latin can be translated, “I am washing an Ethiopian to make him white.” The meaning of the ancient parable is to convey the stupidity of trying to accomplish an impossible task.

B. Matthew Poole (1624-1679) a famous Puritan commentator:

“In the Hebrew it is, Can the Cushite, etc? from whence it is well concluded, as learned men judge, that the Ethiopians are of the posterity of Cush …Gen 10:6. For these were the only people of old noted for their black colour in Scripture, as the Ethiopians are now. God showeth that the Jews by their continued customary sinning had so injured themselves to wicked practices, that it was as much labour in vain to endeavour to reclaim them, as to go about to wash a blackamoor, or to take out the natural spots of the beasts called leopards.”8

C. Matthew Henry (1662–1714) another famous Puritan commentator:

“Dirt contracted may be washed off, but we cannot alter the natural colour of a hair (Matt 10:36), much less of the skin; and so impossible is it, morally impossible, to reclaim and reform these people.”9

D. John Calvin (1509-1564) the famous reformer in Geneva:

“Blackness is inherent in the skin of the Ethiopians, as it is well known. Were they then to wash themselves a hundred times daily, they could not put off their blackness… As, then, they (Judah) had hardened themselves in doing evil, he says that they could not repent, that wickedness had become inherent, or firmly fixed in their hearts, like the blackness which is inherent in the skin of the Ethiopians, or the spots which belong to the leopards or panthers.”10

E. David Clarkson (1622-1686) English Puritan and assistant to John Owen:

In his sermon “Man’s Insufficiency to do anything of himself” from John 15:5, he states that man cannot “procure of act any grace” and second, “cannot subdue any lust.” In support of this 2^nd point, he says:

“Jer 13:23, ‘Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?’ etc. These may be painted or covered, but not changed.”11

He goes on to use this verse to describe the total depravity of the unconverted.

F. Stephen Charnock (1628–1680) an English Puritan theologian:

“The prophet speaks not here of what they were by nature, but what they were by custom; contracting thereby such a habit of evil, that, like chronic disease, could not be cured by any ordinary means. But may he not accustom himself to do good? No; it is as impossible as for an Ethiopian to change his skin.”12

3- Answering Objections

I will address three objections.

A. Sparse biblical evidence

To my knowledge, Jer 13:23 (and perhaps Matt 5:36) is the extent that the Scripture directly addresses the idea of the immutability of racial characteristics. Again, more could probably be said from science and the law of nature, but I restrict myself to Scripture here.

Because the evidence comes down to just one passage, some will object to my evidence and say I have gone too far in my conclusions. The problem is not in the evidence; it is in the expectations. We ought not expect the Bible to say much on something that is so obvious. Again, Calvin said on Jer 13:23, “Blackness is inherent in the skin of the Ethiopians, as it is well known.” But I am glad that the Scriptures say something about it.

Think about all the things that are true by nature that the Bible never comments on. Does the moon’s gravitational pull influence the ocean’s tides? Is the rainbow really caused by sunlight shining upon water in the atmosphere? These things are unnecessary to the purpose of the Bible, and so it does not say anything about it. Likewise, Jeremiah appeals to this fact of nature as a given, without argumentation or elaboration. His audience was not immersed in Marxist theories of race, thus, he had no need to elaborate.

B. Ethnogenesis

Ethnogenesis refers to the process by which a distinct ethnic group or race emerges and develops over time. I have no problem with this idea—hence I do not argue for absolute, but practical immutability. I think we have racial difference because God used a normal process over long periods of time that we might call ethnogenesis. Again, as Shedd said, “The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”13

I grant that ethnogenesis is a real thing. Could God have intervened supernaturally to make the African Black and the European White? Yes, He could have done this. Would that be consistent with the curse of Noah in Gen 9:25-27? Yes, it would be consistent with it, especially if we consider the fact that Scripture gives a positive aesthetic judgment to the white color and a negative aesthetic judgment to the black color (See Song of Solomon 1:5, 5:10). But I do not find this point necessary, nor do I see much evidence for it in the text (Gen 9:25-27).14 It is best to leave things unrevealed, unasserted. But ethnogenesis is a real thing and has already been in effect for many centuries. The differences in the races have been established.

Think about Jeremiah’s words more deeply. Jeremiah wrote his book shortly after 627 BC. Noah’s flood was around 2500 BC. I get these numbers from calculating the ages of Adam to Methusaleh (who died in the year of the flood) from Gen 5. When Jeremiah wrote, he spoke of a specific ethnicity or race—an Ethiopian. He did not say, “Jarvis the Ethiopian” as if he spoke of only one man, but he spoke of a whole ethnic group—the Ethiopian. In Jeremiah’s time, the Ethiopian had about 1850 years of ethnogenesis already in his blood. If we calculate a generation at 20 years, that is roughly 92.5 generations. That is a lot of ethnogenesis!

It is important to bring this objection up because ethnogenesis is a real thing and can easily be used by modern egalitarians to distract from my claim. I am an American and a product of a certain type of ethnogenesis. My last name is of English origin. Many Americans have German, Irish, or Scottish last names. But we have been on this continent for some time now and have developed into our own ethnicity—American. We have our own dialect and customs. We are no longer German, French, Dutch or British. The same thing could be said about Africans in America compared to their kinsmen in Africa today. Partly due to inter-racial marriage, but also due to their exposure to Whites, the African-American does also have a distinct ethnicity with their own distinct dialect and customs.

But we cannot say that Whites in America and Blacks in America are much different than their ancestral forefathers. We have both changed a little—but not much. This is why Michael Spangler is correct to speak of it as “relatively permanent” in his book. I choose to word it as practically immutable—but relatively permanent is proper also. Changes that occur today are very insignificant because, in God’s providence, the main ethnogenesis has already taken place and has stabilized future change. We thus can say, at this point in history, that race is practically immutable.

C. Inter-racial marriage

Douglas Wilson responded to Michael Spangler with an online article called The Shimmering Unreality of Race Realism, in which, among other things, he attacked this idea of immutability. Of all that Spangler wrote, Wilson was the most upset about this idea of immutability. He said:

“And here is the place where I want to register my noisy dissent—against the claim that “the differences [are] . . . relatively permanent.”15

Wilson essentially argues that races (or culture as he puts it) are not immutable because of inter-racial marriage. He gives an example of 500 single Whites and 500 single Blacks on “a deserted island the size of Tahiti” and how their offspring would be different. Do we not realize that this experiment will never happen? It is supernatural and contrary to how God preserves the world in His providence. Furthermore, if it did happen, there would still be millions of Whites and millions of Blacks around the globe stabilizing their races. If anything, we would have a new ethnicity.

But before the silly deserted island illustration, he states his disagreement with Spangler. For Wilson, it all depends on inter-racial marriage. On this basis he makes his claim that races are not immutable.

“A Black man could easily have a great-grandchild, bearing his last name and everything, within his lifetime, descended from his loins, who could easily pass for a native-born Norwegian. All it would take is for three men in a row, father, son, and grandson, to each marry a blonde Nordic lass.”

I do not deny that inter-racial marriage occurs. This has taken place (more or less) since Noah. The problem is that it also has NOT taken place. Intra-racial marriage has occurred to a far greater extent. So, what we have today are set races (White, Black, Asian etc.), and these races are not going to inter-marry at any grand scale to turn mankind into an indistinct brown mass.

What is my purpose in critiquing Wilson? I am deeply concerned that the egalitarian spirit of our age has caused the church to ignore nature and common sense. As a result, many are imbibing worldly and unbiblical social views, and some Westerners are even turning away from Christianity because of it.

How many unbelievers in whom the Holy Spirit is working some conviction turn to people like Wilson and reject the gospel because they hear stupid things like this? I have heard of such cases. Put yourself in the place of the unconverted inquirer into the Christian religion. Would you trust a preacher regarding spiritual things who said that the races are equal? Would you trust a preacher regarding spiritual things who denied the reality of human races? Would you trust a preacher regarding the truths of the gospel who lumped race into “culture” and then had a strange way of defining “ethnicity”? This is the common jargon of the pulpit today. Why would an unbeliever, who knows race to be real from the light of nature, trust such a minister regarding spiritual things?

4 - The recent ARP declaration on race

Consider the recent declaration against Kinism or Race Realism by the ARP:

“That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.”16

I find several things faulty with this declaration.

First, I have demonstrated above that it is wrong in substance—if not entirely, certainly in a large part. Second, it is a very broad and sweeping declaration. In other words, if the statement excluded moral dispositions (i.e. the Black man’s propensity to violence) from the idea of absolute immutability, but still recognized a greater measure of immutability to other racial characteristics (skin color, bone structure, mental and physical capacities, etc), I could agree. As I stated above, I believe the gospel will sanctify the Black man to subdue sinful moral dispositions in large measure. But the declaration is very broad and sweeping and provides no room for nuance regarding “human characteristics.” Third, it is noteworthy that the ARP Synod provided zero Scripture references. Are Christians supposed to believe synod declarations apart from an explanation from God’s Word? I often wonder what Scripture proofs they would provide. And if the ARP synod argued for their position from nature, what evidence would they provide? Fourth, the declaration condemns any association with such teaching, “…and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.” What does this mean? It is so sweeping and comprehensive, it leaves the godly among their communion in a challenging case of conscience. Can a member of the ARP read and positively commend the writings of the Southern Presbyterians? Hence, Dr. Stephen Wolfe (and many others) have asked on social media, “What is the mildest position that this condemns?”17 To my knowledge, these questions have not been answered. The vagueness and vastness of the wording rightly solicits such questions, but answers are not forthcoming.

Furthermore, when the RPCNA took it up, there were notable problems with its passing. Dr. Frank Smith dissented from this action of the RPCNA synod. His dissent is well worth quoting in full. Notice that he did not dissent on the grounds of the statement being in error, but he dissented on administrative grounds. I take his points as factually true, and thus, his dissent is well founded.

In dissenting from the action of adopting a resolution commending the action of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, I hereby offer the following. I appreciate the desire by the mover and others to affirm the universality of the church and the gospel, and the fact that every believer stands on the same ground before the cross. Nevertheless, I object to the adoption of the resolution. I object to the manner in which it was introduced, without any notice. Essentially, it was new business, which should not have been entertained apart from a two-thirds vote. Instead of following proper procedure, the court allowed itself to get carried away by the emotion of the moment. I also object to the adoption of such a resolution without any opportunity for careful consideration. Indeed, the ARP fraternal delegate admitted that his Synod took the action first and then referred the matter to a committee to study it and perhaps “tweak” the wording. But that admission demonstrates that the wording of the resolution may very well be problematic. Indeed, the employment of imprecise language could subject the court to severe criticism. More than that, the judicatory in such a case would have lost any possibility of persuading folks whose views may very well be condemned by the court. Given the sensitivity of the overall issue, and the fact that there are nuances that would need to be explored via a careful consideration of Scripture before making a statement that could withstand scrutiny, I hereby dissent from this action of Synod.

Conclusion

The issues of race cannot be fully discussed without addressing the idea of immutability. Practically speaking, race is immutable. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin, nor other natural aspects of his race. And this illustration from nature was infallibly used by the prophet to describe the spiritual condition of Judah.

The exception to this immutability pertains to the soul and the moral propensities certain races and ethnicities have in moral dispositions. Part of the gospel is the power of Christ to subdue sin. But the gospel will not change the color of one’s skin, nor his capacity for intelligence, nor his capacity to run fast. Furthermore, (as I have mentioned above) even the moral dispositions may still—to some extent—remain as an ethnic trait, just as individuals Christians may still struggle with their former sinful habits after conversion.

May God grant His church greater conformity to His truth and use this article unto that end.

Introduction

The Canvas of Creation, by Rev. Drew Poplin, is a booklet intended to expose the alleged errors of Kinism and Race Realism.1 The author’s arguments are both confusing and erroneous. Additionally, he condemns Kinism as heresy.

“At the heart of this heresy is pride... Kinism is the kind of pride and self-superiority that cast Satan out of heaven, brings princes into ruin, and leads men into hell.” (48)2

“To these [Kinists] we must say, ‘Their conduct is not in step with the truth of the gospel.’ ...the implications of Kinism are directly contrary to and incompatible with the free grace of God in Jesus Christ.” (5)

Is this accusation true? Absolutely not! Instead, this booklet is both confusing and erroneous. My review has two parts: First, I will demonstrate the author’s confusion in 9 particulars and then second, demonstrate 5 primary errors in his biblical exegesis.

My intention is not only to refute his fallacious booklet, but also to provide the sincere Christian an introduction into the current debate. I remind my reader not to draw conclusions on Kinism until he hears the other side speak. Proverbs 18:17, “He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.”

Let us now examine this booklet.

Part 1 – Addressing the Confusion

1. The author’s understanding of race is confusing.

The author does not regurgitate the popular slogan, “There is only one race, the human race.” This is a step in the right direction, and a concession that the popular slogan is wrong. Furthermore, he states that race does in fact refer to different lines of common ancestry (see “Perizzites” p.39). But despite these improvements, his understanding of race is confusing. On one hand, he limits the differences among the races of men merely to be a matter of skin color (or superficial outward characteristics), but on the other hand, suggests it is something else.3

“God has painted the canvas of his creation with colors of all kinds—not to give preference to one or the other, but to show forth the beauty of variety. This is not just true of forests in autumn, or sunsets in summer, but even of men and women who bear the image of their Creator and are scattered throughout the four corners of the earth. But in recent days, there has been a rise of those who look at the assortment of hues on the palette of providence and assert that one shade should dominate the others, or that the colors should never mix.” (1)

In the quote above, he suggests that race is a matter of skin color or tone. But in the quote below he seems to imply that this idea of race is not the biblical one, but just the “modern notion” of it.

“The question then comes: What does race have to do with the nature of mankind? First, we must understand what is meant by race, and whether it is a biblical category. The Bible does not utilize the category of race as it is so commonly used today,4 as an artificial sociological classification having to deal primarily with the outward characteristics that have developed over time from adaptation to historic places of origin. These outward differences of different “races” are real, albeit superficial…Over time, societies will certainly develop similarities of physical characteristics (such as skin color, bone structure, etc.) through intermarriage and procreation, which is the focus of the modern notion of race. But ethnicity, as defined by the infallible rule of faith and life, is a category far more complicated than the skin-deep superficiality of race. If the idea of race is limited to focusing on the colors on the canvas, then ethnicity involves…” (11-12)

Furthermore, later in his book, he seems to suggest that race and ethnicity are essentially the same, “That name is an admission of the melding of two races, or ethnicities (Angles and Saxons), together.” (14) He makes this even clearer in a recent podcast, “When I use race, I’m typically thinking of it in terms of national identity.”5

He needs to decide what he means. I grant there is a connection between race and ethnicity. The two terms both speak of one’s natural lineage or ancestry. The main difference is that race is a much broader category (White, Black, Asian, etc). and ethnicity is a more narrow category (French, Irish, German, etc.). It is really that simple.

Furthermore, in a key point in his book, just when he is about to admit that there is something more than just “skin color” to the idea of race, he pivots to a different word—”society.”

“Sins of individuals do not proceed from their belonging to any race other than the human race… Personal sin comes from our heritage in Adam, not our heritage in Asia, Africa, or Europe. The Kinist goes against the biblical and confessional understanding not only of personal sin, but also of societal sin. It is true that certain societies are notorious for particular sins—there is a general legitimacy to stereotypes, or else they would not be so commonplace. The Apostle Paul writes in Titus 1:12-13a, “one of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.” What is the cure for such societal scandal?” (17-18)

Not only does he slander Kinists regarding original sin,6 but he contradicts Paul’s plain words. In Titus 1:12-13, Paul does not refer to the society in Crete, but to the Cretans themselves. He makes a general comment about their race, not their society. But to cover his incoherency, he pivots to a new word—”society.” Who does not see this duplicity?

I wonder if the author would agree that Black societies have particular vices? If so, how would that be different than saying that the Black race has particular vices? How would that be different than to say that Black “culture” has peculiar sins? Everyone knows what we are talking about—Black people have sins that are common to their race—and so do the other races.

The power of God in the gospel sanctifies Blacks, as it sanctifies Cretans, but this sanctification does not change the fact that race is more than just skin color. Instead, the idea of race carries with it differences also in moral characteristics. This is the obvious reading of Paul on this passage to anyone not blinded by the modern egalitarian spirit. More evidence on racial differences can be found in a previous article.7 But for now, a word from Charles Hodge will suffice:

“Every nation, separate tribe, and even every extended family of men, has its physical, mental, social, and moral peculiarities which are propagated from generation to generation.”8

2. The author’s understanding of ethnicity is confusing.

It only follows from this that the author is also confused on ethnicity. The author provides his explanation of ethnos or ethnicity from Rev 7:9. As you read the below quote, ask yourself, “What is the author saying an ethnicity is?” I trust an honest reader will be left a bit confused.

“But the category used in the Bible to differentiate one group of men and women from another group of men and women is far more complex. The New Testament uses the Greek term ethnos, from which we get the word ethnicity. Revelation 7:9 provides three clarifying descriptors of the term ethnos: “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation (ethnos), from all tribes and peoples and languages.” From this passage, the biblical category of ethnicity includes shared political identity (tribes), familial identity (peoples), and cultural identity (languages). Over time, societies will certainly develop similarities of physical characteristics (such as skin color, bone structure, etc.) through intermarriage and procreation, which is the focus of the modern notion of race. But ethnicity, as defined by the infallible rule of faith and life, is a category far more complicated than the skin-deep superficiality of race. If the idea of race is limited to focusing on the colors on the canvas, then ethnicity involves what currency paid for the paint (tribes), what stores the paint came from (peoples), and how the paints are going to be applied to the canvas (languages).” (11-12)

To be fair, the end of this quote refers to an illustration of a canvas he gave earlier in the book, but it still leaves a confusing definition. What does he mean that tribes are the currency which paid for the paint? Furthermore, he seems to be admitting that ethnicity is fundamentally a blood issue, “Over time, societies will certainly develop similarities of physical characteristics (such as skin color, bone structure, etc.) through intermarriage and procreation…” So, after the Muslims invade the USA and 7 generations have taken place, we will all be brown? Is not this more like a Kinist view of race? Furthermore, what does he mean “shared…familial identity (peoples)”? Is this not also the Kinist position?

To add to the confusion, he seems to be using “ethnicity” and “society” interchangeably in the above quote. However, he does seem to deny the centrality of blood and ancestry in the idea of ethnicity (ethnos). It seems that, in his definition here, and his words below, he does not find blood and soil to be the fundamental principle in ethnicity.

“Based on the Scriptural concept of ethnos, it is clearly unhelpful to divide Americans … into further distinctions (such as Native American, Asian-American, African-American, European-American, etc.) as these artificial walls only serve to separate what is true, natural commonality of ethnicity.” (12-13)

Does he really believe that the differences between “European-Americans” and “African-Americans” are “artificial walls”? In the end, his view of ethnicity, as difficult as it is for me to perceive, seems to be best summarized as: a shared experience in one place by multiple groups of people who have various identities.

The author is simply justifying the current situation in America. When one looks across the landscape of America, he sees various peoples, languages and cultures—and this understanding of a nation or (ethnos)—must be the biblical position because, otherwise, that would cause a lot of ecclesiastical and political problems. Given this definition, I would ask him, “Do you condemn the Naturalization Act of 1790 that forbid all non-Whites from citizenship?” I suspect that he does, and therefore, to be more historically honest and more biblical in his methodology, he should have condemned this law and his American White forefathers who wrote it.

I will develop my understanding of what an ethnicity or nation is in a forthcoming article in greater detail, but three points will suffice to expose the author’s errors on ethnicity.

1. His exegesis of Rev 7:9 (12) is very superficial. He gives no reasons for why the three words (kindreds, people, tongues), define and extrapolate the term ethnos. He only asserts it, but instead, he needs to prove it. Also, Rev 7:9 does not define the term ethnos with three “descriptors.” Instead, it proves to show that God’s people in heaven are not from just Israel or only speak Hebrew, but a diverse people from all the world. Finally, why would the author choose to explain the meaning of ethnicity or nation from a vision in the book of Revelation? It makes far more sense to begin “in the beginning” with the passage which is commonly referred to as “the table of nations”—Gen 10.

2. In Gen 10, we learn that a nation (ethnicity) is a people of a common blood, a common language, a common land and (to some degree) a common government. Several times in this chapter we have a similar refrain (v.5, 20, 31). After each son of Noah is mentioned, with their specific nations listed, we read: “after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations” (v.31). From the context of the chapter, it would be logical for us to deduce that a nation includes a common blood (after their families), a common language (after their tongues), a common land (in their lands) and a common government (the Patriarchs of each respective nation). It may be true that a nation or ethnicity may experience a time of exile (i.e. Israel in Egypt or the Jews in Babylon) and be in bondage to another nation, but even then they are still a separate ethnicity and have some measure of local or family government.

3. This view of nation or ethnicity makes sense when we look at the various nations in the Old Testament— especially Israel. Israel was not only the church, but a particular nation, with a particular blood line—as the Philistines, Egyptians and Babylonians. The author’s understanding of nation lacks any real sense of a common blood relation. In my forthcoming article, I will interact with the exceptions to the blood rule in the Mosaic law (inter-racial marriage, converts to the true religion, war brides, etc.), but exceptions do not nullify the rule nor the norm.

Simply put, an ethnicity is fundamentally blood and soil. The author’s understanding of ethnos is modern, unbiblical, and radically left. His view serves to allow a Christian in America to go along with the Marxist and egalitarian spirit of the day and still feel like he is being biblical.

3. The author is confused on the nature of the debate.

In a disagreement, it is exceedingly important to know where the disagreement lies. He seems to think that what is at the center of this debate is to discuss what is essential to the nature of humanity. After reviewing 4 points on classical logic regarding the idea of nature, he says, “What is the nature of mankind? What does it mean to be human?” (10) He then proceeds to rightly quote the Westminster Shorter Catechism and concludes, “The nature of mankind is to be made by God, male or female, body and soul, in his image and for his glory.” (11)

Thank you for the reminder, but this is not the nature of the debate. The Kinist happily grants this point and fully endorses that all races of mankind are created in the image of God. We concur that “race” or “ethnicity” is not essential to being human. Furthermore, the below quote (which concludes this section of his argument) in a non sequitur—it simply does not follow. A discerning reader will recognize it.

“If this is true [race/ethnicity is not essential to what it means to be human], there is no argument from nature which can be made of the inherent superiority of one race over another.” (13)

However, if one is willing to grant that the races of mankind are real (and the author does),9 the question at the center of the debate becomes, “Are the races of men equal in natural characteristics?” This is why Kinists refer to their opponents as egalitarians, because they insist (contrary to Scripture, history, experience and good science) that all the races of mankind are equal. They insist that the gospel changes more than it does. As I pointed out in a previous article,10 the gospel does not increase one’s natural capacity to jump higher, run faster, or think smarter. The hope a sinner has in Christ does not include the promise that if his people believe in Christ, they will develop nuclear submarines, or dominate the Olympics in the 100m dash.

Thus, his whole discussion on what it means to be human is superfluous and distracting. He needs to stick to the question: “Are the races of mankind equal in natural characteristics?”

4. The author confuses people on what Kinists believe.

I will not address all the places wherein he misrepresents Kinists, or at times misquotes them. But he does grossly misrepresent the Kinist position. I will only mention a few to vindicate his slander and prove my point.

It is evident that this booklet is the fruit of a sermon he first preached in his own congregation in September of 2024. In that sermon he provided a general context of who he was refuting. He said:

“And yet in this day, and in our locale, there have been sundry heresies and false teachings and vain philosophies which have crept up... This is a real problem. Not just out there abstractly on the internet, but within this past year, this heresy has become an issue which has arisen within our own sister churches, the OPC, the FCC, and the ARP, in the Triangle and Triad.”11

From this quote, and my knowledge of his location in North Carolina, he is very likely referring to events around Michael Hunter and Michael Spangler at the Covenant of Grace ARP church. However, it is also very likely that in his booklet he is addressing other “Kinists” for he does mention “keyboard warriors” (21) and anonymous online accounts (44).

But at the root of this confusion is that he never tells us who these Kinists are. No doubt, he wants to “protect the sheep” and not bring attention to what he understands to be a heretical teaching. But in the process, he opens himself up to enormous problems. I acknowledge the possibility that there are random “Kinists” out there who actually believe the horrible things that he says “Kinists” believe. But it is certainly not Spangler, nor the other “Kinists” that I associate with. Because of his “no name” policy, he is certain to misrepresent them and over generalize. Furthermore, it does not help him that he only wrote 48 small pages of actual content. It is just hard to say something well briefly.

In the end, he paints Kinists in the worst possible light. One thing is certain. If what the author says about “Kinism” is true—it certainly is a heresy! The problem is that he repeatedly misrepresents and slanders Kinists. I will consider just 4 of the more alarming quotes:

“At the root of Kinism is the belief in racial supremacy, or Race Realism. This is the claim that the various races of mankind are not equal, but instead are hierarchical, with one ordained by God to have authority and rule over the others as a superior over his inferiors, as a mature father over his helpless children.” (4)

This is simplistic and suggests something that is not true. Race Realism is not about White nations having “authority and rule” over Black nations by the ordination of God. Instead, it is about the fact the races are not equal and God, in His providence, has made racial differences in natural characteristics. It also includes (largely stemming from Noah’s prophecy in Gen 9:25-27), that Whites are superior, as a race, over other races. But it is one thing to say that a Black man must be ruled by a White man or that a White nation has a God ordained authority to rule over a Black nation (which I deny).

It is another thing to observe, from God’s providence, that White nations are superior to Black nations and, therefore, have a dominance over them in world affairs. Kinists believe in the self-sovereignty of the various nations in Africa. They do not think the historic White nation of the USA had any God given right to rule over the nations in Africa as vassal state. Colonization and improvement are one thing, believing that God ordained them “to have authority and rule over the others” is another thing.

“The Kinist believes that certain persons are prone to particular sins by virtue of their race—they simply cannot help it. On the contrary, James 1:14-15 tells us where personal sin comes from… Sins of individuals do not proceed from their belonging to any race other than the human race, being born of their father Adam.” (17)

The Kinists that I know do believe that “certain persons are prone to particular sins by virtue of their race” as I demonstrated above from Titus 1:12-13. But to assert that “they simply cannot help it” is going too far. The unconverted “cannot help it” (Rom 8:8) because they are unconverted,12 but by the power of God, certain vices (peculiar to certain races) can be overcome by the power of the Spirit. Nor do Kinists place original sin in someone’s race, but, as the author says, it comes from being “born of their father Adam.”

He asserts that “Kinism is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ” in chapter 3. He then proceeds to describe the person of Christ and say a few more comments from Scripture on issues indirectly tied to the offer of the gospel to all nations. He concludes with the following:

“As the visible church was primarily confined to one nation under the old covenant, the authors of the Old Testament wrote in the language particular to that nation. But as the Gospel in these last days is to go to the nations, the apostles wrote in the common language of the known world. Our faith and fellowship are to be shared by all peoples, and we are to do so in love…” (30)

In this quote, he insinuates that Kinists do not offer the gospel to people of other races. This is exceedingly offensive and slanderous. It is totally divorced from the reality of Mr. Spangler’s ministry or other Kinists that I personally know. They desire the gospel to go to all the world and preach to all men to be saved by the blood of Christ alone, by faith alone, by grace alone and for the glory of God alone. As Pastor Gavin Beers said in April of 2025,

“Well, a Kinist may be a heretic, but Kinism or race realism does not ultimately deny the fundamental and cardinal truths of the gospel. And so, while we oppose this, we must not sinfully misrepresent men. The people that I’ve encountered believe the fundamental truths of the gospel. They believe that the gospel is for all men. They believe in evangelism and worldwide missionary endeavor.”13

It is noteworthy to point out that Pastor Beers is well acquainted with Mr. Spangler and his family. The author should take his cue from Pastor Beers and stop the slander. If this “race” debate has become vociferous, it is because of men like this author who are guilty of slanderous exaggeration.

“The leaders of this movement of Kinism and Race Realists are wolves seeking to lead weak Christians astray by feeding them on their fear, bitterness and father hunger.” (51)

It is one thing to disagree with Kinist doctrine, to judge a Kinist minister incompatible with the peace of the church and to transfer him somewhere else. But, it is another thing to slap the label of “wolf” on him and to censure or excommunicate him (as the ARP did with Michael Hunter).

The Kinists that I know are deeply concerned about the rot in the evangelical church, the adoption of unbiblical doctrines, and the destruction of their own people by Marxism and mass-immigration. They are upright men with godly marriages and sweet families and have a heart for evangelism and for God’s glory. They believe there is a great need for the church and nation to repent of sin and false doctrine (Isa 9:12-13). The author, with this quote and similar ones like it, confuses people on what Kinists believe and has demonstrated a lack of judgment and charity.

5. The author confuses the distinction between the church and the nation.

He does this in several places (15, 20, 28, 32), but I will pick two examples.

“When it comes to the mutual fellowship and care within the priesthood of believers, there is no place for assumed superiority and self-aggrandizement. The Lord Jesus prayed for our unity (John 17:20-21) and said that the greatest mark of the church is love (John 13:35). Christ has joined the nations together under his yoke in the Gospel, and what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (32)

I am perplexed to know what to say. Either he has rejected the historical distinction between the church and the state (which I doubt), or he is exceedingly confused. He takes the idea of the unity which all believers have in the gospel (stated well by Paul in Gal 3:28) and somehow asserts that “Christ has joined the nations together under his yoke in the Gospel.” Perhaps this is simply a strange way of describing the future postmillennial hope? Regardless, even with the idea of Christian nations under Christ’s reign, the gospel does not obliterate nations and their governments. Is he advocating for a form of globalism? Kenyans and Americans, Mexicans and Saudis just intermingling and inter-mixing on the basis of their common Christian faith?

Second, he says regarding Acts 17:26:

“… God has determined the periods and boundaries of their dwelling place. God is all-powerful and has appointed the interspersing of one people among other ethnicities just as much as he has the days of their ethnic stagnation. Nations have real boundaries, and are not just ideas; but they are also ever-changing throughout history. This verse is as much “in favor” of the mixing of the races as the segregating of them because it is a simple confession of the absolute sovereignty of God in human history.” (16)

The author is confusing the historic difference in Reformed theology between the decretive and preceptive will of God. God does not approve of sin, and yet He has ordained it. God forbids sin, yet, in a way that is difficult to understand, has ordained it to occur (cf. Gen 50:20). In Acts 17:26, Paul clearly comments on how God, according to His design in providence, has segregated the nations in their places and times. Instead, the author’s quote seems to support the idea that God has approved nations to adopt unbiblical policies of immigration and citizenship, to inter-marry at will with foreign immigrants, and replace the host nation or race by means of an unjust war. The author seems to approve this amalgamation of the nations in the above quote. I am dumbfounded by his simplicity.

6. The author confuses the historic position of the Protestant and Reformed church with his modern notion of egalitarianism.

The book is not only exceedingly short, but is exceedingly modern. His ideas are without any precedence in historic orthodox theology. How so? Consider the fact that he never cites anyone regarding race that supports his position. Except for a silly quote from Chesterton regarding warfare (52) and a helpful quote by Nazianzus on the person of Christ (26), he has no citations whatsoever in his book. Even if the publisher demanded that he keep the book short, a single quote from a respected author from the past which supported his claims would have done him well to show his historical orthodoxy.

Why does he not include any quotes from the past that show agreement with his position? It is because his views are modern—a result of our egalitarian age. Instead, to make up for this obvious omission, he asserts:

“Books and blogs are being written that take our Church Fathers, Protestant Reformers, and Presbyterian forebears out of context or put them in the worst possible light.” (3)

Why not demonstrate this claim with a pithy quote from Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, Symington, Warfield or Machen? The truth is that orthodox Christian authors (up until the Civil Rights Movement) either simply assumed Race Realism, or only mentioned it as a passing comment. In a previous article, I demonstrated how various and respected men (Calvin, Luther, Rutherford, Charles Hodge, and even J.G. Vos) held views consistent with Race Realism. At least, he acknowledged that R.L. Dabney and Jonathan Edwards were on the Kinist side (7). The thought never seems to occur to the author, “Am I a man of my time—controlled by the pressures of egalitarianism?”

7. The author confuses Christians to think that “all is well” by providing no answer to today’s racial problems in the West and in the USA.

Near the beginning of one of his online interviews, the author confesses, “I just happen to live under a rock.”14 He then emphasizes that he is not on social media. Social media can be abused, but I suggest to my reader that the author does not have a good grasp on reality in the USA partly because he is not on social media. He evidently does not have sufficient knowledge of the growth of Islam and Hinduism in Texas (for example).

I would like to think that the author and others in the RPCNA acknowledge that mass-immigration is unbiblical. I would like to think that the majority of the men in the RPCNA are uncomfortable with the polices of the Democrats (especially the radical left). Why doesn’t the author address these problems and alleviate the legitimate concerns of the people that are warm toward Kinism by showing his biblical solution? This would seem to be a wise tactic in his favor. But, although he mentions it briefly in the above interview, he does not include it in his book. This is a result of him being negligently unaware of these problems and, consequently, having no solutions. A minister who was knowledgeable of the “heresy” of Kinism (and was wise) would provide solutions to the social and racial problems of the day to set his people at ease. This author fails miserably in this regard. He seems to be totally disconnected from reality.

In fact, he seems even willing for worldwide amalgamation and cultural Marxism to take over in the USA. This is not an overstatement. Consider the below quotes:

“Themes about the great replacement of whites, the dismal future for our country, the safety of our families come up again and again. What is this about? Fear. The skin color of our descendants give generations from now simply does not matter; the important thing is whether or not we have passed on the heritage of our faith. While we should seek to care for the city, state and country in which we live, we must also recognize that the empires of earth are sandcastles in the tide of time.” (43)

I strongly suggest that “fear” of God’s wrath in the replacement of the host nation with foreigners (Deut 28:43) is exactly what a White American Christian needs today. He needs to look at Great Britain, seek God’s mercy and repent. Fear, in this sense, is good.

Furthermore, this author took a vow to uphold the mediatorial kingship of Christ over the nations—including the USA. In short, the mediatorial kingship of Christ states that nations are to covenant with Christ and be Christian nations. The Scriptures teach, “Blessed is the nation who God is the Lord” (Ps 33:12). Although, the USA has no specific promise from God to last until Christ returns, it is consistent with the duty of Christians to make, not just the Church endure until the end, but their specific church in their specific country to endure. This would obviously have positive implications for the nation. Thus, the author’s line of thought in the above quote is effeminate, selfish, unpatriotic, and lazy. He does not want to deal with reality. He is like King Hezekiah, “For there shall be peace and truth in my days” (Isa 39:8).

The church in America will simply not exist at this rate and will quickly follow the way of Europe. The nation then will be destroyed—completing the trajectory it has been on for many decades. Does he really think the Muslim and Hindu immigrants are going to be converted to Christianity at any mass rate? Does the author not know that Islamic leaders in the USA are already saying “Islam in every house?”15 And who really believes that the color of our descendants’ skin “simply does not matter?” No wonder so many young White men are raising questions about Race Realism, Kinism, Christian Nationalism, and leaving egalitarian churches!

A Christian ought to agree that the kingdom of God is more important than the kingdom of America. But a Christian is in a specific country and, therefore, must fight for Christ in his country. As a result of that fight, he should hope that his nation will continue because God has made promises to bless a Christian nation (Ps 33:12). I am one who hopes America will return to such a spiritual state—and my hope is well founded. In the end, the author’s view of the current state of America is exceedingly unacceptable for any patriotic American with natural affection for his country.

8. The author makes several vague and confusing statements.

These statements are not related directly to race, but it goes to show his incompetence in writing. I marvel that his editors did not correct some of these statements. Consider three examples:

“Jesus has taken our nature to redeem and restore those who have that nature. The Word did not assume a race, but a nature; therefore, race is not essential, but circumstantial, to what it means to be human.” (26)

It is proper to speak about the Son of God assuming an impersonal human nature. However, it is very significant to the fulfillment of prophecy and the promises of God for the Christ to be of the seed (race) of David—a Jew (Romans 1:3). This statement is sloppy at best.

“We are to heed the instruction of the elect lady of our Lord, the church.” (6)

The above quote comes after he cited the recent ARP declaration on “immutable human characteristics.” Here, he seems to assert the infallibility of the church like a Romanist. Would he like to qualify such statements at all? If not, then why did we have a Protestant reformation?

My opponents will no doubt find a way to accuse me of rejecting church authority. I believe in the real authority of the church. The church has the power to declare the Word of God and to order circumstantial matters “decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:40). But when the church is wrong about God’s Word, her unbiblical declarations have no authority. “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

“The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ completed what was sealed in the incarnation: the coming together of God and humanity. This is a world-wide redemption of those from every nation, tribe, people, and language. In grace, there is an entire equality of the nations of this world because they are purchased by the Lamb of God slain for the sin of the world.” (27)

In the context of the above quote, he is trying to claim that Kinism is contrary to the gospel. If he is simply trying to assert that the gospel is to go out equally to all nations—I agree. But this is a strange way of putting it. I am afraid he is saying something else.

One clear teaching of historic Calvinism is that God does not deal equally with all men. Some men are elected until eternal life, others are not. This election is particular to individuals. Yet, because God works by way of a covenant, we can also say that God deals differently with whole nations and even races. The fact of the matter is that, at the present time, there are a lot of Arabs in hell and a lot of Europeans in heaven. That may change by the end of time, but there certainly is not, “In grace, an entire equality of the nations of this world…” It is a sloppy and vague statement.

9. The author confuses his discerning reader by stating several contradictions.

I will address three contradictions.

First, there is a contradiction in how to deal with Kinism in the past and how to deal with it in the present. In one place he says that Christians should show “charity” to those who have wandered in Kinism in the past—i.e. Dabney and Edwards (7). But in another place, he says that Christians should have a “holy hatred of the heresy of Kinism” today (47). He tries to reconcile this view by stating that there this is a difference between those who erred when Kinism “first” sprung up and those who try to revive it today—i.e. Spangler (7). I find this to be inconsistent. Does he not want to protect the sheep from Dabney and Edwards? Be consistent and condemn them of heresy also.

Herein lies a big and pressing problem for modern day egalitarianism. On one hand, they do not want to condemn their forefathers, but on the other hand they do. A more honest approach is to simply condemn the forefathers who taught Kinism and say they were wrong and that the church today has better light.

Second, he speaks of rightly ordered love (21) and yet says that everyone is his brother (22).

“Having rightly ordered loves is about priority of attention and affection…” (21)

“Everyone is your bother, no one is an ‘other.’” (22)

I am sure he will accuse me of taking his words out of context. But the proper understanding is that he speaks “fluff” and has a distorted view of natural affection. He confuses categories that should never be confused. Natural affection is one thing. Christian affection is another. They are not in competition. If a man does not have natural affection for his own family, extended kin, and nation; he is unnatural and unchristian. If a man does not care for strangers and avoids all foreigners, he is not being a Christian. But everyone is not a “brother”—naturally or spiritually.

Third, he states that marrying in the Lord is the only marriage requirement (20), but also says marriage can be a matter of prudence based on various differences of nation, culture, tongue, etc. (3)

“The legitimate bounds of marriage for a Christian is clearly expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:39, ‘She is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.’ There is no prohibition of marrying someone from a different nation, tribe, people, or tongue.” (20)

“For the Kinist, the choice to remain within one’s race when choosing a spouse, for example, is not a matter of preference as regards attraction, nor of prudence as regards cultural compatibility—both of which are legitimate categories of liberty and wisdom. Instead, for the Kinist, this segregation remains a matter of principle: whites need to stay with whites, and blacks with blacks.” (3)

Which one is it? Is it “only in the Lord” or is prudence and wisdom regarding “cultural compatibility” part of the marriage question also? Regardless of what he means by “cultural compatibility”—and how deficient his own conception of this likely is—he is still inconsistent. Just because he fails to elaborate on what cultural incompatibility is, does not deny that he has a basic and fundamental agreement with the tenet of Kinism on marriage.

The overwhelming majority of Kinists that I know agree that there is, “no prohibition of marrying someone from a different nation, tribe, people, or tongue.” (20) To the degree they forbid inter-racial marriage it is on principles of prudence related to race, nation, and family ties. It is not on the same category as marrying an unbeliever or one of the same sex. Kinists apply prudence to marriage just as he says he does.

In practice, however, his words about “cultural compatibility” have no practical application. Modern egalitarians simply do not counsel Christians away from marrying someone on the grounds of “cultural incompatibility.” In my experience, the men, who are like this author, have no practical application to this “cultural compatibility” argument. They see inter-racial marriage as “next level” Christianity and promote it as a positive good. All that matters to them is “spiritual compatibility.” The growing number of cases of inter-racial marriage in the reformed denominations—proves my point.

These concessions to “cultural” compatibility keep the more conservative members of his denomination from being uncomfortable with his egalitarianism. In reality, men like this author have departed from their forefathers. No, in fact, they condemn them! Inter-racial marriage was condemned by law in the history of the USA and remained so (in certain states) until the 1960s. Who made these laws? Darwinists? No, their Protestant forefathers who actually had “prudence” and applied common sense to their national and familial situation. I will say more about inter-racial marriage in a forthcoming article, but this suffices to point out his contradictions.

Part 2 - Addressing the Errors

1. Caleb was not a foreigner, but from the tribe of Judah.

Josh 14:6 says that Caleb was the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite. The author then concludes that Caleb “… was a Kennizite, a descendant of Esau (Josh 14:6; Gen 36:11).” (20). He is leaning heavily on Gen 36:10-11. Unfortunately, he failed to do more research.

There is a much better explanation about Caleb’s ethnicity. First, it would be hard to believe that some descendent of Esau left his prosperous people, found Israel in Egypt, married into Judah during the captivity in Egypt, and, either had a son named Caleb or being Caleb himself, rose up as a leader in his tribe—and all before the Exodus. The Israelites were an enslaved people. Why would this descendant of Esau immigrate into such a horrible situation? Plus, Israel was strictly segregated in the land of Egypt and did not inter-marry with the Egyptians. Why would they inter-marry with an Edomite?

Second, it is clear from other Scriptures that Caleb had a relative whose name was Kenaz from the tribe of Judah. 1 Chronicles 4:13-15, a portion covering the line of Judah, says:

“And the sons of Kenaz; Othniel, and Seraiah: and the sons of Othniel; Hathath. And Meonothai begat Ophrah: and Seraiah begat Joab, the father of the valley of Charashim; for they were craftsmen. And the sons of Caleb the son of Jephunneh; Iru, Elah, and Naam: and the sons of Elah, even Kenaz.”

This genealogy is a little confusing to our western minds, but it is very reasonable to understand that Kenaz was the ancestor of the men following v.13—to include Caleb. Genealogies in the Bible are not always complete. It is unclear why Jephunneh is not mentioned, but it is reasonable to see that Kenaz was the father of the Kenezites and Caleb was his grandson. Also, it appears that Caleb had a grandson named “Kenaz” in honor of his grandfather.

Matthew Poole confirms my view. He writes, on Numbers 32:12 regarding Caleb, “The Kenezite, so called from Kenaz, his grandfather, or one of his eminent ancestors, Josh 15:17, 1 Chronicles 4:13-15.”

The confusion comes from the fact that there were people in the holy land who were called Kenites and Kenizzites (Gen 15:19, 1 Chr 1:35-36) and also that Edom had a son of a similar name (Gen 36:10-11). So, it is reasonable that the author made this mistake, but it is also revealing. He finds a way to promote inter-racial marriage and hastens on without looking into it more (Prov 25:8). He should think more deeply.

2. The curse of Canaan in Gen 9:25-27 is not about Joshua’s conquest of Canaan.

I discuss this at length in my article Race and Noah. His position (39ff) is very short-sighted and erroneous.

3. Song of Solomon 1:5 and 5:10, does not refer to a Black and White inter-racial marriage.

The author asserts:

“What is even more striking is that the entire union of Jesus and his church is described in the allegory of the Song of Songs as an interracial marriage. In the Song, our Lord is white and ruddy (5:10), and the church is the Shulamite woman who is “very dark, yet lovely” (1:5).” (29)

I am utterly shocked at this statement. Does the author really believe that the reference to “white” and “black”16 is to be interpreted as the color of their skin and, therefore, serves to promote inter-racial marriage? Is there even one commentator in the Puritan allegorical tradition that would assert this stupidity?

If it is an allegory, then keep it allegorical. In this verse, “white” refers to Christ’s purity and perfections and “black” refers to the church’s impurity and imperfections. The church is lovely to Christ, though she is blackened with sin. Christ is spotless and divine.

Furthermore, the text is putting a positive aesthetic judgment on the “white” color and a negative aesthetic judgment on the “black” color. I do not think the author wants to encourage this type of thinking. But, if he believes in the allegorical approach made popular by the Puritans—he unwittingly did promote this aesthetic judgment. I encourage my reader to look at Matthew Henry, George Burrowes and James Durham’s commentaries on both 1:5 and 5:10. Two quotes will suffice.

“She qualifies her concession, though I be black yet I am comely, that is I am not universally, or altogether unlovely, mine estate is mixed, being made up of crosses and comforts, corruptions and graces, beauty and blackness.”17

“By ‘white and ruddy’ we are to conceive Christ’s qualifications, according to the strain of the allegory, there being no bodily qualification set out here, Christ at that time not being incarnate, yet even then was he white and ruddy; the due and just mixture of these colours maketh a man lovely, and evidenceth a good complexion of body: so by them in Christ is understood a concurrence of all fit qualifications and excellencies…”18

4. Numbers 12:1,9-10 – Miriam was not punished for being a “sinful” Kinist.

My reader will notice, upon reading Numbers 12:1-10, that the Lord does not rebuke Miriam and Aaron for being “sinful” Kinists. Instead, the only reason for the punishment of leprosy was due to Miriam (and Aaron) challenging Moses’ unique prophetic role.

Both the Kinists and the Egalitarians need to be self-aware of their presuppositions. Why read Numbers 12:1 and assume that Miriam’s accusation had no legitimate basis? Was Miriam a wicked woman? No, she was a godly Israelite, who was a prophetess (Ex 15:20) and who sinned grievously in this case. The fact that the Lord rebuked her and Aaron for their insubordination, and not their Kinism, is significant and is overlooked by the author.

It is better to see that Miriam and Aaron recognized that Moses was in an abnormal marriage. He married Zipporah, who was not from Israel (Ex 2:21). They used this abnormality to find fault and to try and bring Moses down and bring their status up.

It is significant that Moses would lay down very specific and “Kinist” laws for the Levitical priests. Leviticus 21:13-14 says, “And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.” But Moses did not have a Levite for a wife, not even an Israelite. Thus, they used Moses’ abnormality to gain power and position.

Of course, the Lord did not condemn Moses’ inter-racial marriage. He married her for good and extra-ordinary reasons. He was forced out from his people and had no opportunity to marry an Israelite—like everyone else. The Lord was angry against them for this false accusation,19 but He was primarily concerned about their lust for power. Their reason for critiquing Moses did have some merit—His marriage was abnormal and contrary to the laws of Levitical marriage that Moses himself gave from the hand of God. If my reader consults the commentaries of Calvin and Henry, they will find no reference to Miriam committing the “sin” of Kinism. And if someone insists that this women was someone else than Zipporah, then he is left with the strange position that Moses was a polygamist (it is mere conjecture to say that Zipporah had died).

5. Acts 13:1 is not a problem for Kinists.

The author says:

“There is no idea of one race being more fit for ministry than another race, nor to the necessity that pastors only minister to those of their particular race. The roll of the Presbytery of Antioch, as recorded in Acts 13:1, is case in point:

Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger [literally meaning, black or dark], Lucius of Cyrene [which was in North Africa], Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Three Jews and two Africans serving in the same Presbytery, doing the same work of praying and preaching, and the roll is called simply in passing. Why belabor what to Luke and the other early Christians seemed normal? These men worked together in the Gospel, were blessed with the filling of the Spirit, saw fruit from their ministry, and then commissioned Paul and Barnabas both in their missionary journey and to the first Synod in Jerusalem. There is no thought given to their family tree, but only to the Father above; no consideration to color, but only to Christ; no deference to skin, but only to the Spirit.” (33)

First, the author assumes that both of these men were Black. Niger’s name is Simeon, which is of Hebrew origin and Niger is Latin. J.A Alexander says, “Simeon … here distinguished by the Roman surname Niger (Black), which has led some to identify the person here meant with Simon the Cyrenian, who bore our Saviour’s cross (Matt 27:32).”20 The author assumes the reference to “Black” is to his skin, but why not his hair? Matthew Henry interestingly asserts, “Simeon, or Simon, who for distinction sake was called Niger, Simon the Black, from the colour of his hair; like him that with us was surnamed the Black Prince.” Or, perhaps they nicknamed him “Black” because he was of a darker complexion than other Mediterraneans. The word “Niger” simply does not necessitate that he was from the Black race. Today, we read “Niger” and think Nigeria, but we need to do exegesis not eisegesis.

Second, so what if Lucius is from North Africa? That does not automatically make him from the Black race. History tells us that there is a significant racial difference between the inhabitants of North Africa and other parts of Africa. I wonder if the author thinks that St. Augustine was Black? He was from North Africa also. Furthermore, Lucius is a Latin name—he obviously identified with that advanced culture. Furthermore, some commentators favor that this “Cyrene” refers to the place in Cyprus, not North Africa. Furthermore, Matthew Henry believed “Cyrene” was a reference to a college in Jerusalem, “Lucius of Cyrene, who some think … was the same with this Luke that wrote the Acts, originally a Cyrenian, and educated in the Cyrenian college or synagogue at Jerusalem, and there first receiving the gospel.” Acts 6:9 indicates that there was a Cyrenian “college” in Jerusalem.

Finally, Kinists do not absolutely forbid inter-racial churches just as they do not absolutely forbid inter-racial marriage. Kinists recognize the circumstances of America and see prudent reasons, based on racial difference, why some churches should be segregated—as R.L. Dabney articulated in his article “Ecclesiastical Equality of Negroes.” But the circumstances are different in Acts 13:1. If we assume that these two men, Niger and Lucius, were Blacks, then we do well to assume they were fit for the office alongside other Jews of the same intellectual ability. Experience teaches us that this is exceedingly rare today.

In another place, the author rightly says;

“When it comes to the ministry of the Word, those called to the pastoral office must all have the same qualifications and the same duties as expressed in the Word of God.” (32)

Is he saying that Black students for the ministry in his denomination are to be held to the same standards as White students or Asian students? If so, would he allow for a Black student in his Presbytery to be licensed to receive a call as a pastor who had not passed the required Hebrew course of instruction? I hope he would not and I trust that is not happening in his denomination. However, I know that some exceptions to this “same qualifications” standard have been taken in reformed churches—especially regarding the knowledge of the Hebrew language. I hope these exceptions are warranted, but I fear they are not.

In conclusion, the author, in his Acts 13:1 exegesis, assumes more than he can prove and, even if his assumptions were correct, it is not a problem for Kinists. Circumstances are different now. A man, with common sense, has legitimate grounds (based on prudence) for the segregation of churches in America in a way that is similar to segregation in marriage. As long as a Christian strives for all people to come to the knowledge of salvation, and as long as a Christian desires for churches of other races to prosper in the Lord—racially segregated churches are warranted.

Conclusion

Rev. Drew Poplin’s book, The Canvas of Creation, is confusing and erroneous. His positions on race are modern, unbiblical and radically left. Furthermore, his assertion that Kinism is a heresy is instigating vociferous debate and an unnecessary schism within the church. Instead of his ideas being platformed and published, he should be ashamed and marginalized.

One of the ways in which we can gather truth is from nature. Not all truth is contained in Scripture. The Bible is not a book on Ethnology, nor is it a science manual. It is a book of special revelation that reveals how God is reconciling Himself to sinners through Jesus Christ. Scripture is the only rule of faith and practice. It is infallible, inerrant and ought to be highly cherished. However, it does not contain, nor was it intended to contain, all the truth that we can know in this world.

Yet, Christians, while esteeming the Scriptures as they ought, often neglect the truth that can be gained from nature. It was not as common of a mistake in past days. For example, theologians like A.A. Hodge and W.G.T. Shedd often defended truths (even spiritual ones) from reason or nature. A.A. Hodge gave four reasons why Christians can be assured of salvation, and his fourth reason is, “From the experience of God’s people in all ages.”1 In another place, he attempts to prove the idea of common grace and the common operations of the Spirit “from universal experience and observation.”2 He delineates between natural theology, that which can be known about God from “the light of nature,” and revealed theology which comes from God by “supernatural channels” which is primarily written Scripture.3 The Westminster Confession of Faith, to which I fully subscribe, makes the same basic claims, “Although the light of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest that goodness, wisdom and power of God…” (WCF 1:1) etc.

More importantly, Paul argues from nature in 1 Cor 11:14, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Regardless of the exact point here by Paul, all can see he is arguing from observable nature and asserts that nature teaches. In this article, I will argue using the same methodology of Paul. My claim is that nature teaches us that the races of men are not equally endowed by God in natural things (intelligence, physical ability, etc.).

Because my argumentation in this article is from “observation,” therefore, I limit most of my comments to the differences observed between Blacks and Whites. I will comment on a few other races at times, but most of my comments will be in comparing these two races. As a White man growing up in America and in the South, I am especially well acquainted with these two races. In recent years, I have been associated with many Mexicans, Asians and those from the Middle East. But I will refrain from speaking much about these races of people because I am not well enough acquainted with them, nor do I think it is necessary to prove my basic argument.

I include, as part of this argumentation, an appeal to history,. Although history is not the exact idea in the previous quotes from the Westminster Confession or from Paul, yet it can be included in the same category of argumentation, namely, that which can be established as true from human observation over time.

I acknowledge that, just as Scripture can be twisted and wrongly interpreted, so too can observations from history and nature. I will do my best to demonstrate a fair treatment of this natural revelation. I will now look at three parts: (1) experience, (2) history and (3) science.

Part 1 - Experience:

A Childhood Memory

As a young boy, my family and I were huge fans of the Auburn Tigers. My family went to at least one (if not two) games at Jordan-Hare Stadium every year to watch the college football game. “War Eagle” was a common greeting I heard growing up. It was a tradition, especially as a young boy, to go to the famous “Tiger Walk.”

It was in the early 1990s, and I must have been around seven years old. I went with my dad, my uncle, my older brother, and my older cousin. We stood on the road as the football team walked from their dorm into the stadium about two hours before the game. It was a big SEC matchup, and the home crowd came out in force with the band to cheer on our players as they walked into the stadium. As the towering, muscular figures passed by me, I gave them all high fives and cheered them on. While we were walking back, we had a good time chatting. My uncle will never let me forget what I said. At some point in the conversation, I turned to the group and exclaimed, “Man… I wish I was Black!” Everyone laughed hysterically. Ever since, it has been frequently brought up at our family gatherings as a very comical moment in my life.

What is the point? As a young boy, innocent and without malice, I simply noticed that our best and most recognized and most important players were all Black: Reggie Slack, Stacy Danly, James Bostic, Brian Robinson, Greg Ogeltree, etc. Sure, there were exceptions, but I saw a pattern and knew I was White. Is this not the obvious experience and opinion of all my readers who have any significant athletic experience? Many sports are dominated by Black athletes.

NFL and NBA

Consider a few facts gathered from the internet on the NFL and the NBA alone. Remember that as you look at this data, the NFL and the NBA are businesses. It is about money. It is not controlled by DEI but is an accurate reflection of reality and what simply produces the best results.

A quick AI search tells me that in 2023, 53-58% of all NFL players were Black and about 25% were White. In the same year, the NBA was 70% Black and 18% White. When you consider that in 2023, America was composed of only 15% Black people and 62% White people, the above statistics become more startling. How is it that in a sports league uncontrolled by DEI regulations, there is a disproportionate representation of Black athletes? It is because people from African descent are superior to those in European descent in explosive athletic movements.

Furthermore, consider specific positions. From data collected from 2014 to 2017, 99% of all NFL cornerbacks were Black. Whereas, in the quarterback position, 76.6% were White and 17.2% were Black. Contrasting these positions is helpful. Unlike the cornerback position—wherein speed and agility are of prime importance—the quarterback position requires a much higher cognitive ability to maintain composure, read defenses, make adjustments and call audibles. In recent years, the quarterback position has been filled with more Black players like Jalen Hurts and Patrick Mahomes. This shift to more Black quarterbacks is no doubt due to the change in the game to accommodate a style of offense that fits a more mobile quarterback. Thus, in 2023, 35-40% were black and 55-60% were white. However, the racial disparity, per position, is still evident.

In my mind, this can be reasonably explained, not by culture, but by natural giftedness. As I will point out later, Whites have a higher IQ and a higher propensity for leadership and the quarterback needs leadership ability and more cognitive skills and less athletic abilities than other positions (i.e. cornerbacks).

Consider the top ten basketball players in the NBA in the last 50 years. 1975 would be a good time to start for, at that time, Blacks started to enjoy more civil rights and were beginning to make serious inroads into the NBA. Larry Bird is the only name given by the AI search that was White.

1. Michael Jordan (1984–2003)

2. LeBron James (2003–present)

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969–1989)

4. Magic Johnson (1979–1996)

5. Larry Bird (1979–1992)*

6. Tim Duncan (1997–2016)

7. Kobe Bryant (1996–2016)

8. Shaquille O’Neal (1992–2011)

9. Hakeem Olajuwon (1984–2002)

10. Kevin Durant (2007–present)

It is just an AI search, but it still insightful. Furthermore, of the last 37 winners of the NBA dunk contest, only two were White. What does this data tell us? Blacks are superior to Whites in explosive athletic movements.

Olympic 100m Dash

From 1960 to 2024, the total percentage of Black finalists for the Olympic 100m dash was 92.9% for men.4 That means that of the 133 finalist slots, only 9 were non Black. The last White man to win the competition was Allan Wells of Great Britain in the 1980 Moscow Olympic games. This is some interesting data, and it is hard not to see a trend. Where are all the Asians and Arabs? And why are so many Blacks winning this event? It is indeed strange (if we adopt egalitarian paradigms) that there are so many Black men winning this race.

Summary of Olympic Men’s 100-Meter Champions (1936–2024) by race.

Some will object to my point and argue that all of this is culture based. I agree in part, but I think it is the culture of Blacks to play football, basketball and track and field, not just because they like it. Instead, they like it because they are good at it.

Lawyers and Doctors

But things change when we move from athletics to more cognitive professions like lawyers and doctors. Consider the field of law. Grok AI says:

The most recent data on the ethnic makeup of lawyers in the United States comes from the American Bar Association’s (ABA) 2024 National Lawyer Population Survey and other sources like Zippia, reflecting trends up to January 1, 2024. Below is the breakdown of the racial and ethnic demographics of the approximately 1.32 million active lawyers in the U.S.

White (Non-Hispanic): 80%

Hispanic or Latino: 6%

Asian: 6.4%

Black or African American: 5.4%

Interestingly, Grok AI adds these comments about whites:

This over-represents White individuals compared to their 61.6% share of the U.S. population (2023 Census).” And then again about blacks, “Black lawyers have remained stagnant, dropping slightly from 5.5% in 2012 to 5.4% in 2024, per Zippia and ABA data (4.5% in 2022). This significantly underrepresents their 14.4% share of the U.S. population.

It seems that Grok is well trained in our egalitarian age to assume that all races are equal and should be, in a just society, equally represented in these professions. Interesting indeed!

Is this merely a reflection of culture and social norms? Are we just to assume, as so many do today, that this fact of the law profession is due to so called “White privilege” and “racism”? I assert that it is not. And to the degree it is cultural, it reflects that these two races prefer to do what they are good at.

What about the medical field? Undoubtedly, doctors are called to study and have a great ability to process information and analyze data similar to lawyers. They must have a high degree of cognitive ability to analyze data and hold information in their working memories. Interestingly, the data is similar to the law profession. Grok AI reports:

The ethnic makeup of doctors in the United States, based on the most recent data from 2023–2024, reflects a medical workforce that is less diverse than the general population. Below is the breakdown of active physicians (approximately 1,010,892 as of 2023) by race and ethnicity, drawn from sources like the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC), Zippia, and the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile:

White: 56.2–65.6%

Asian: 17.1–18.8%

Hispanic or Latino: 5.8–9.5%

Black or African American: 5.0–5.2%

So, we can see that although Blacks are 14.4% of the US population, they are only 5% of the doctors. What makes this data more striking is that, contrary to the NFL or the NBA, the law and medical fields have been highly regulated and influenced by DEI. What would the stats be if medical and law schools were not pressured to admit students based on their ethnicity or race? I suspect the percentage of Blacks would be much lower than 5%. But my overall point is simply to add substance to what the average person would “notice” in his experience. Blacks are faster and Whites are smarter. Our experience tells us that we are not equally endowed. And there are many people, if they were honest and you asked them privately, who would say, “I never want to be treated by a Black doctor.” It is just reality, not sinful racism.

The egalitarian would fervently object, “This is just because Blacks were slaves for generations and are still recovering from being forced into lower places in society!” I believe that to be a wrong analysis of history.

Black slaves were “liberated” by the Federalist invaders in 1865. They have had several generations to rise from that social class. Also, there has been three generations since the Civil Rights movement about 60 years ago. Consider that it only took Blacks 20-30 years to take over the NFL and the NBA. Why did they not take over their portion of the law and medical fields in the same amount of time? It is because they are not as good at those cognitive activities as they are sports. It is just that simple.

Furthermore, if one looks at the unbelievable feats of Kenyan distance runners, they will disbelieve the “slavery theory.” Grok AI reports:

Kenya is the pre-eminent Olympic nation in Africa for track and field, particularly in distance running (800m to marathon). Kenyan runners have won more Olympic gold medals than any other African nation across all sports, with 34 gold medals in track and field alone as of 2024.

These Kenyans were never slaves in America. Also, if one looks into the data (as Steve Sailer has), he will learn that eastern Africans are better at distance running and western Africans are more explosive and good at short sprints.5 And even if one adopts an overall oppressive narrative of Black slavery in America, he still has a lot to explain. What did picking cotton have to do with explosive athletic movements? And if one wants to argue that they were “bred” to produce stronger Blacks, this is propaganda to smear Southerners as wicked people who treated their slaves as cattle (see my section on slavery in “Race and Egalitarianism”).

Another objection to this claim is to bring up smart Black people like Colin Powell or Barack Obama. But what is Powell and Obama’s race? Powell was from Jamaica and had a mixed ancestry with the White race.6 Obama’s mother was a White of English, Irish and Scottish ancestry.7 These are just two examples, but, in my opinion, many of those who identify as Black and who have contributed to their professional field are of mixed racial ancestry. It is something to think about. As I will show below, I am not denying that some Blacks have a high IQ, I just think American society grossly embellishes reality about Black intelligence.

More objections could be made, and more responses and data could be presented. But my purpose in this article has been argued, evidence has been drawn forth and data has been given which confirms our experience. The races of men (at least Whites and Blacks) are not equally endowed. Some are faster, and others are smarter. More could be said about Asians and their strengths (spelling bees anyone?)8 or Mexicans, but that would be unnecessary. But what I have shown is reasonable and comports with our experience. Believe your “lying eyes.”

Part 2 - History

In the last article, I asserted a “type” of White supremacy from Genesis 9. In that article I stated that White supremacy was an “undisputed fact” of history. I think a more reasonable reader will admit this point. However, it is my intention to demonstrate and substantiate this claim—to some degree.

We live in a country that has a Black heritage month. This celebration has diminished the extreme disparity of what Blacks have actually done in America, versus what Whites have done. Furthermore, no one wants to compare and talk about these two races in history because it is so obviously one-sided. I am not an historian and I respect the work of a learned historian, but unfortunately, there is not much history to be known in order to prove my point. My claims here will be on the basic and undisputed facts of history. My real work is to bring out these facts to plain sight. We need to “notice” history.

Gross Domestic Product

The current wealth of nations speaks much about their history. These nations did not become wealthy in the last few decades. So, what nations have the current largest GDP? Grok AI speaks only of the nations coming from the line of Japheth, besides 1 from Shem (India)9. There are no Hamite nations listed. The GDP is listed by trillions in USD.

1. United States – 30.62

2. China – 19.53

3. Germany – 4.92

4. Japan – 4.27

5. India – 4.19

6. United Kingdom – 3.73

7. France – 3.21

8. Italy – 2.42

9. Canada – 2.31

10. Russia – 2.20

It is granted that now these nations have a mixed population (at least in the west), but their historical roots are the main force behind their current strength.

It becomes more obvious when one researches the GDP per capita of the nations over 5 million in total population.

1. United States – $89,105 (GDP per capita); 341 million (population)

2. Switzerland – $107,000 (GDP per capita); 9 million (population)

3. Norway – $89,000 (GDP per capita); 5.5 million (population)

4. Ireland – $112,000 (GDP per capita); 5.3 million (population)

5. Denmark – $80,000 (GDP per capita); 6 million (population)

6. Netherlands – $70,000 (GDP per capita); 18 million (population)

7. Australia – $65,000 (GDP per capita); 27 million (population)

8. Germany – $60,000 (GDP per capita); 84 million (population)

9. Sweden – $62,000 (GDP per capita); 10.5 million (population)

10. Austria – $58,000 (GDP per capita); 9 million (population)

Inventions and Technology

Who is responsible for inventing the technology that we enjoy today? They were all White, and I am sure I could provide even more examples.

• Printing Press: Johannes Gutenberg (1440, German)

• Train: George Stephenson (1814, Englishman)

• Telegram: Samuel Morse (1837, American)

• Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell (1876, American)

• Electric light bulb: Thomas Edison (1879, American).

• Automobile: Karl Benz (1885, German)

• Modern Submarine: John Philip Holland (1898, American)

• Television: Philo Farnsworth (1927, American)

• Nuclear Bomb: J. Robert Oppenheimer (German-American, 1945)

• Satellites: Sergey Korolev (1957, Russian)

• Internet: Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn (1960s, Americans)

• Cell Phone: Martin Cooper (1973, American)

Exploration and Colonization

Considers also some other basic facts of history that we tend to ignore. Were the original inhabitants of North and South America developing civilizations that had the ability to travel across the Atlantic and colonize Africa and Europe? No. It was the White man in Europe that traveled to the “New World” and eventually took over the continent. In the case of Roman Catholic Spain and Portugal, they amalgamated with the original inhabitants of South America, and also elevated them. This region no longer speaks the native languages (not en masse at least), but Spanish and Portuguese. In North America, White settlers pushed the native Americans out of their lands. I am not justifying or condemning this. It is a matter of historical fact.

Regardless of how advanced the Aztecs were (or whoever else was in South America), they did not build ships and sail east. Now the inhabitants of South and North America are largely in Christendom. The Black slaves also assimilated into the superior language and religion of their White masters. To the degree that Blacks have their own faith (Black Hebrew Israelites, Nation of Islam, etc), they hold to a religion that is greatly inferior in intellectual credibility. Consider the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. It is an example of the superiority of the White race (those who started these false cults were White—Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell) that they have spread their religion around the world. It only makes sense. Superiors conquer inferiors. Some will argue that this disproves my point. It does not in the slightest. The same is true regarding the Antichrist and errors of Rome. The Popes have always been White. My point here is not that Whites are the only true Christians, my point is to argue from history that Whites are dominant.

Why has Christianity not taken root in certain Shemite lands? I suppose I do not know exactly why. Certainly, it was not God’s will to powerfully apply the work of the Holy Spirit to their hearts. But I think it is also reasonable to say that Muslim, Buddhist, and Hindu apologists are smarter than the pagan tribal religious leaders of Africa and South America. When the White man took the true religion around the world, the Holy Spirit made their missions effectual. But to deny that their superior culture, language and race had anything to do with it—is foolish.

Part 3 - Science

The Bell Curve

The arguments from science are summarized and presented well in the book The Bell Curve. It was written in 1994 by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Herrnstein was a psychologist and professor with a PhD from Harvard and Murray is political scientist and author with a PhD from MIT. Murray has written other books on race and culture, but The Bell Curve is perhaps his most well-known book. It is an 872-page detailed study on “Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life”—as the subtitle indicates. My goal in this section is to set forth its basic claims regarding Black and White IQ differences (with sparse interaction with other races). I do not claim to be a scientist nor to set forth a full summary of the controversy on IQ and race, but I do think it is helpful to show some of what these scholars have found.

Insofar as “nature” shows that there are differences between the races, and insofar as I will focus on Blacks and Whites, their findings indicate a significant variation in IQ levels. He summarizes his own work in this way:

“East Asians (e.g. Chinese, Japanese), whether in America or in Asia, typically earn higher scores on intelligence and achievement test than White Americans... The difference in test scores between African-Americans and European-Americans as measured in dozens of reputable studies has converged on approximately a one standard deviation difference for several decades. Translated into centiles, this means that the average White person tests higher than about 84 percent of the population of Blacks and that the average Black person test higher than about 16 percent of the population of Whites.”10

He attributes this to both genetics and the environment. Although Murray (Herrnstein is dead) has received enormous outrage from the left, I consider him to be more of a moderate regarding the reason for this IQ difference. He says:

“… the scientific state of knowledge, unfinished as it is, already gives ample evidence that environment is part of the story. But the evidence eventually may become unequivocal that genetics are also part of the story.”11

He speaks to the “malleability” of IQ and gives an entire chapter to the question of how individuals (and groups) could rise or fall in IQ. He speaks about a “realized intelligence” and says that whether IQ comes more from genes or the environment, “It is not very malleable.”12 In other words, environments may change, but it does not change an individual or group’s capacity for intelligence by very much.

Sometimes pictures speak louder than words. Murray’s findings on the difference between Black and White IQ can be pictured in the below graphs. These graphs have been used by other “bloggers” and perhaps you have seen them before. They are helpful to quickly communicate the difference.

Graph 1: Black and White IQ difference distributed by an equal number of Blacks and Whites.13

Graph 2: Black and White IQ difference according to the actual size of the US population.14

Some have objected to Murray’s findings as one-sided and racially motived. But Murray denies this motive and interacts with his chief opponents from the left, such as scientists Stephen J. Gould, Leon Kamin, and Richard Lewontin. He demonstrates, with evidence and argumentation, that the IQ differences between Blacks and Whites cannot be attributed to test bias, cultural bias or the socioeconomic status of the tested population. Below is another helpful graph that shows the difference of IQ between Whites and Blacks of the same socioeconomic status. In other words, one cannot simply argue that Black IQ is lower because they have been “oppressed” and are raised in poorer homes.15

Objections

I remember having a conversation with a godly young lady on this topic. She was embarrassed by my socially and politically incorrect statements and retorted, “I know lots of smart Black people!” I challenged her on it, and we had a productive conversation. Perhaps you have had similar conversations?

There are only so many people in the world like Clarence Thomas, Voddie Baucham, and Thomas Sowell. But I trust that the lady I spoke to was sincere and truly thought that Blacks and Whites were basically the same in IQ ability, and I think I know why. I share this story because I believe that many typical Christians do not think deeply on this matter. But they need to think more deeply and “notice” generalities and trends.

The reason why she held to this position is a failure to recognize a phenomenon I like to call “street smarts.” Some Blacks have “street smarts.” They are sports analysts, political leaders, motivational speakers, coaches, and athletes. They know how to influence people and sway the emotions like Martin Luther King. They can read a room and make friends—especially the liberal hucksters. But if you stop and think about it, they are not very intelligent. They rarely write real scholarly work, come up with new ideas or ways of communicating old truths to the modern ear. Instead, they simply know how to effectively get on in our everyday world with their own people.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Whites who lack “street smarts” but are highly intelligent. These are the nerds we see everywhere (many Jews and Asians are like this too). They have taught themselves how to speak another language (or two or three), can read Greek, Hebrew and Latin, and remember everything they read. But they cannot hold entertaining conversation with the average person and are introverted. These are the people that invent the nuclear submarine and cure diseases. These are the ones who will probably never be good speakers, they may not have many friends, may not find an attractive spouse, but are very intelligent. They help establish nations and improve society. Blacks are almost without these types of people. If they have an inventor (i.e. George Washington Carver), he is not that exceptional and exceedingly rare.

So, it makes some sense that the young lady I mentioned earlier really did think that Blacks and Whites are the same in IQ. But she failed to make the distinction between “street smarts” and actual IQ. She also probably does not realize how her racial egalitarian age has influenced her judgment. She simply needs to start “noticing” things. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, many of the smart Blacks identify as “African-American” but are actually 25-50% White.

Sailer and Noticing

Steve Sailer’s book is a great resource to start this habit of “noticing,” and I recommend it, to the discerning Christian, as a helpful commentary on American culture. On this regard, Sailer points out:

“Q: Are there differences in average SAT scores among racial groups?

A: Yes. Ashkenazi (European) Jews appear to average the highest – maybe around 110-112 – followed by Northeast Asians (105), and then by gentile White Europeans and North Americans (100). The world mean is around 90, Hispanic-Americans are at 89. African-Americans traditionally average around 85 and Africans in Sub-Saharan Africa around 70.

Q: Aren’t all IQ researchers’ white supremacists who just want to show their race has the highest IQ?

A. If they are, they’re doing an awfully lousy job of it.”16

These statistics accord with common experience. Jews are smart and so are Asians. In my experience, Mexicans are not so much, and Sub-Saharan Africans score even lower on IQ tests than African-Americans. It is my experience, but I trust my reader just needs someone to say it to confirm their experience. Sailer has a lot of other simple “common sense” things to say about race and the many differences that can be “noticed” among us. We are not equal.17

Conclusion

Experience, history and science have effectively demonstrated a disparity of natural gifts among the races, especially between Whites and Blacks. Why am I pointing all this out? The races of men are not only real, but the differences are substantial. If Blacks and Whites are really this different in IQ and athletic ability, what other differences can be found among the races? Plenty. We just need to start “noticing” them and come out from underneath the blind egalitarian stupidity of demanding that race is just a matter of skin tone.

This will have many helpful social applications. Blacks ought not to expect to be successful in highly cognitive professions (except for the rare cases like Thomas Sowell). They have a place in music, art, skilled labor and sports; but the majority of them are best fit for unskilled labor. I might add that the majority of Whites are best fit for unskilled labor also. We cannot and are not all smart. Blacks ought not to think this is shameful, but celebrate what God has done in His providence. Plus, society will benefit due to the likelihood that there would be less people unqualified in important positions like medicine.18 What we need is a reality check and humility.

The recent “axe” taken to DEI in the military by Pete Hegseth is refreshing. I am not saying that Blacks should be prevented absolutely from cognitive professions. Instead, we ought to qualify and admit people to cognitive professions on their actual abilities and not by racial quotas. If that results in there not being many Blacks in certain places—so be it. We are just different and that is ok. Are Whites complaining that they don’t have their place in the world of cornerbacks?

But are these trends in racial difference fixed? Are these differences in IQ and athleticism (and whatever else can be substantially noticed) immutable? This question will be the topic of my next article.

Introduction

The great motto of our egalitarian age is that all men—peoples, nations, races—are equal. The modern egalitarian refuses, ignoring common sense, known history, and Scripture, to acknowledge natural and real differences among mankind by insisting that the differences that we do see are merely a matter of “skin tone.” But is this true?

Scripture informs us sufficiently enough that God has made natural distinctions among mankind beyond the mere color of skin. Yes, there is one human race created in the image of God. But, as I have pointed out in a previous article, it is appropriate to also speak of at least three races of men (Japhethites, Hamites and Shemites) who have real differences and natural inequalities. In other words, God has not endowed the three races of men equally. To some God has blessed more than others, both spiritually and naturally. Although all men are created in the image of God, and although, under the New Testament, the gospel is for all nations, they are not all equal in natural capacities nor have been dealt with equally by God in His providence.

The Scripture which most clearly demonstrates this natural and spiritual inequality is Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25-27. After Ham treated his father spitefully, and his other sons treated him respectfully, Noah awoke from his wine and, by divine inspiration, gave the following prophecy regarding the future of mankind. Read carefully:

“25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

What follows is not intended to be a full exposition and application of Genesis 9:25-27. Instead, I intend to show two things. First, this passage ought not to be limited to merely covenantal or spiritual realities but also to have natural implications. Second, the races of men are not all equally endowed by God with natural gifts. This endowment is not a matter of creation, but of providence. As Shedd said, “The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”1

In showing these two things, I will ask a series of questions, make one clarification, and along the way provide quotes from respected Christian theologians and commentators from the past who agree with my exegesis.

Who did Noah Curse? – “Cursed be Canaan”

The most popular position held by commentators today is that Noah cursed only one of the four sons of Ham—Canaan. The are a few reasons for this position. First, the inspired text only mentions Canaan and not Ham. At first glance, this seems decisive to the question. The second pertains to the reasons for cursing Canaan and not Ham. These advocates argue several reasons why only Canaan was mentioned. First, God, who is merciful, chose to limit the curse to just one son. Second, Canaan is assumed to be the youngest son of Ham, and therefore, some say that Ham was the youngest son of Noah and thus God cursed in like pattern. Third, Canaan is assumed to have a similar sinful disposition like Ham. This makes sense because we are later told that the Canaanites were perverse people like Ham (Deut 9:5). Oddly enough, this line of reasoning supports more of a “Kinist” concept in the passing down of the traits of the fathers. However, the reasons they give for why Noah only cursed Canaan are speculative and overlook how God normally works through a covenant framework. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Noah only cursed Canaan, we must also acknowledge that the text just does not tell us why he does so.

However, the better position is that Noah’s curse fell upon Ham and all his descendants. I will give reasons for this position, explain why only Canaan was mentioned and provide a few respected Christian commentators who agree with me.

First, the position that all of Ham’s descendants were cursed is consistent with the parallel blessing upon all of Shem’s and Japheth’s descendants. All of Shem’s descendants were blessed to have as their father—faithful Shem. Although the covenantal blessings would only be fully realized in the line of Abraham and eventually in Judah (from which Christ came), all Shem’s descendants would benefit from having Shem as their father. A general observation from the history of Shem’s race is that the false religions that would later arise from his descendants had more light than the paganism of Ham’s descendants (largely Africans). Also, Japheth’s blessing was for all his race and, as I will later point out, his descendants were part of the geographic enlargement and most would later come into the visible church (the tents of Shem).

It is also important to note that, within all three of Noah’s son, there is disparity. Some sons of Japheth are more enlarged than others (Europeans), some sons of Shem are more blessed than others (Abraham’s line), and some sons of Ham are more cursed than others (Egypt was obviously more advanced than the many pagan tribes of Cush or Phut).

The second reason why all of Ham’s descendants were cursed is based upon the principles of covenant theology. When a federal head acted publicly, all those whom the federal head represented would be impacted by either his obedience or disobedience. All of Adam’s descendants (by ordinary generation) were cursed with sin. David’s sin, in conducting the census (2 Sam 24), impacted the whole nation. Christ’s obedience is imputed to all those who are His by faith (1 Cor 15:22). It would be strange, especially this early in the history of redemption and special revelation, for God to set a precedent that He would not normally follow. It is possible that He was showing mercy to Ham in only cursing Canaan’s line. Indeed, God is a merciful God and delights in mercy (Mic 7:18), but I think covenant theology and the principle of a federal head acting for all whom he represents, should take the precedence.

The third reason for this interpretation is that it best agrees with history. What is the history of all of Ham’s descendants? This will become clearer when I deal with the content of the curse later in this article, but for now it is helpful to say one word. All of Ham’s descendants would prove to be subjugated to the other two lines. It took time for many parts of this prophecy to take place. Therefore, the power of ancient Egypt and the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10) does not disprove it. As history develops, we can all see how Ham’s descendants have been subjugated to the more powerful nations coming from Japheth and Shem. The Hamite inhabitants of North Africa would later be subjugated by the Muslims in the 6^th century A.D. The nations of Africa (Ham’s line) would be colonized (and improved) by the sons of Japheth (Europeans). Even today, Africa contains a series of third-world countries except for maybe the Muslim (Shemite) nations in the north, and the nation of South Africa formerly ruled by descendants of the Dutch (Japhethites). History is key to interpreting prophecy. Try understanding the prophecies of the book of Daniel without knowing the history of the Medes, Persians, Greeks and Romans. For my partial-preterist and historicist friends, this also pertains to interpreting Revelation. It is the same with this prophecy.

Even if one believes that the curse fell on Canaan’s line only, still it must be noted that Ham’s other three sons (Mizraim, Cush, and Phut) were neither blessed nor cursed. If you stop and think about it, this lands us in the same place. It makes Ham’s other sons bear a “functional” curse, namely, in that they were not blessed like Japheth and Shem. The fact that they were not blessed, helps us understand the centuries of history that followed after this curse up to the modern day.

However, it is better to say that the curse of subjugation fell on all of Ham’s descendants, not just Canaan. And it is important to note that this opinion (that Ham was cursed and not just Canaan) was not originated by Southern slaveholders. There is a firm witness to this position among the early reformers and even from modern writers who were against the African slave trade (see quotes below). I do not believe this text is important in discussing slavery. Dabney said it best in his Defence of Virginia, “It is proper that we should say, in conclusion, that this passage of Scripture is not regarded, nor advanced, as of prime force and importance in this argument. Others more decisive will follow.”2

Why was Canaan mentioned and not Ham?

It seems that in Noah’s curse, the reason why only Canaan was mentioned was to reinforce the covenantal principle. I will explain. This event was early in divine revelation, and it seems appropriate to believe that God wanted to reinforce that all the seed of all three of these men would be impacted by the merit or demerit of their representative and patriarch. One may then ask, “So why did he only use Canaan’s name?”

We have reasons to believe that Canaan was the firstborn of Ham. No place in Scripture gives their birth order and if we go off the order of their names, this could indicate that Canaan was the youngest (see Gen 10:6), but his being positioned last could also mean that Canaan was the most cursed and degenerate. However, if we consider the fact that twice in the preceding text, Moses tells us, “Ham is the father of Canaan”—this point becomes more helpful (vv.18, 22). It seems likely that Canaan was mentioned because he was the first offspring after the Flood.

Consider that, although the flow of the narrative suggests a short amount of time from the flood abating to Noah’s prophecy, we still need to leave time for Noah to build a vineyard and to grow vines. Gen 9:20 says, “And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard.” I am not sure how long this took, but it is conceivable that, in the meantime, Ham’s wife gave birth. Furthermore, the Scripture clearly states that only 8 were saved in the flood (1 Peter 3:20). There must have been sometime between the floods abating and Noah’s sin. It seems likely that Ham had Canaan first and Noah wanted to make clear that the merits and demerits of his sons would pass on to his offspring. Thus, he mentions Canaan’s name, indicating that his descendants would be included in the curse. The others were not born yet, but the curse would fall on them also. My reasons here are a bit speculative, but it is no different than when others who speculate on why only Canaan was cursed. The text does not directly tell us either way, therefore, to determine God’s reason, we refer to good and necessary consequence and my view also considers the mention of Canaan’s name in the preceding text.

A more helpful reason why only Canaan was mentioned, and not Ham, is based upon a pattern we see in Scripture. Sometimes when a certain person commits a horrible sin, his name is omitted. Bethsheba, who ought to be seen as a harlot who did not cry out in the city when David approached her (Deut 22:23-24), had her name omitted from the line of Christ (Matt 1:6). Pekah, who was a wicked King of Israel and aligned himself against Judah, is often not mentioned by name because of his wickedness. His name was undesirable. Instead, we see “the son of Remaliah” instead of his name (see Isa 7:4-5, 8-9). Furthermore, it must be noted that although Ham and Pekah’s name are used in the inspired text, when the text records the words of holy men, the holy men omit the name of the wicked person.

This is the same type of thing that occurs today when a wife refers to her ex-husband. A disgruntled ex-wife may refer to “his father” instead of her ex-husband’s name. The name is unpleasant to her and so she uses another way of describing him. The same thing occurs in Scripture. Because Ham was so wicked, his name was omitted from the mouth of godly Noah.

Finally, another reason is given by Matthew Poole who argued that there could be an ellipsis in the text which omits the phrase “father of.” This would make the text read, “Cursed be the father of Canaan.” The avid Bible reader would know that this is a common Hebraism. This Hebraism was also carried over into the Greek New Testament. Anyone with a King James Version can simply note the words in italics in the following passages (2 Sam 21:19, Matt 4:21, John 19:25). For example in Acts 7:16, “And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.”

Quotes regarding the curse falling on all of Ham’s descendants:

Below are a few respectable commentators who assert that all of Ham’s descendants were cursed, not just Canaan:

1. Matin Luther, the famous reformer (1843-1546):

“Ham is cursed by his father… Great is the wrath of the Holy Spirit which here prompts him to say of Ham, “A servant of servants shall he be;” that is, the lowest and vilest of slave….How, then, was it true that Ham was cursed and Shem was blessed?”3

He then goes on to elaborate clearly that Ham was cursed.

2. John Calvin, the famous reformer (1509-1564):

“And that is to say, Ham is cursed first, as if the words were framed this way: God is not content to punish Ham, who offended, but God’s rigour and severity will have to extend further, until it reaches ten generations and God shows from age to age that that lineage is an abomination to him. That, then, is how Ham is here included and is even the first. The text adds that Ham will, in his entire prosperity, share in the ingratitude he had committed against his father in such a villainous and ignoble act….The first thing, in a word, that we have to remember about this passage is that God wanted to punish Ham in all his lineage….so it is with good reason that such a sentence is pronounced on Ham and his entire lineage…Therefore, let us note that when it says here that Ham will be cursed with his entire lineage, God displays his vengeance to instruct children… We see later the children who were descended from Ham. Why does God not curse them? The situation is common to them all and does not apply to one more than the other.”4

3. Henry Ainsworth, the English nonconformist clergyman (1571-1622):

“But Ham is not exempted hereby from the curse, although his son be named: as Shem is not exempted from the blessing in the next verse, where ‘Jehovah his God’ is named. So Jacob is said to bless Joseph, Gen. 48:15. When Joseph’s children had their blessing, ver. 16, etc. And the curse of the wicked, reacheth unto ‘ the fruit of their body,’ Deut. 28:18.”5

4. Matthew Poole (1624–1679), the prominent English Nonconformist theologian and Puritan minister:

He gives several reasons for why Canaan was mentioned and not Ham but implies the curse is upon all Ham’s descendants:

“When Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the curse, but rather more deeply plunged into it, whilst he is pronounced accursed, not only in his person … but also in his posterity… And though Ham had more sons, yet he may be here described by his relation to Canaan, because in him the curse was more fixed and dreadful, reaching to his utter extirpation, whilst the rest of Ham’s posterity in after-ages were blessed with the saving knowledge of the gospel.”6 [8]

5. W. G. Blaikie, the Free Church of Scotland minister (1820-1899):

“Though the curse of Ham was formally pronounced on Canaan alone, it has been reflected more or less on the other branches of his family; the black-skinned African became a synonym for weakness and degradation.”7

6. W.G.T. Shedd, the “Old School” Northern American Presbyterian (1820-1884):

He distinguishes between the sin of Adam and the sin of Ham, but in his analysis he clearly reveals his view on this text:

“The sufferings that came upon the descendants of Ham because of his individual sin were not retributive, like those which come upon the whole human race because of the one specific sin of Adam or like those which come upon an individual for his own transgressions. Ham’s descendants have suffered for centuries on account of their ancestor’s sin, but have not been under eternal condemnation on account of it.”8

What was Noah’s Curse? – “…a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

We now transition to the second exegetical question of the text. The most popular position today on the meaning of the curse is that it pointed to the later destruction of the Canaanites in the conquest by Joshua and the Israelites. Again, this makes initial sense because the conquest of Joshua was against the inhabitants of the land known by this early progenitor. The conquest of Canaan is also a significant part in the history of redemption and in the history of God’s Old Testament people. Moses could have been encouraging the Israelites to follow Joshua into the promised land. However, it falls short of the complete meaning of this curse for good and decisive reasons that leave no question on the matter.

First, Canaan was to be a “servant of servants” not “the annihilated of the annihilated.” A “servant of servants” is a phrase that does not denote utter annihilation. I believe that the destruction of the Canaanites is part of the broader subjugation of Ham’s line, but it does not encompass the entire curse. Yes, the Gibeonites would become Israel’s slaves, but this was not commanded by Moses and was a mistake by Joshua and the leadership.

Second, Japheth is involved in this curse on Canaan and yet had nothing to do with Joshua’s conquest of the holy land. Gen 9:27 reads, “God shall enlarge Japheth … and Canaan shall be his servant.” Japheth’s dominance of Canaan was fulfilled, in part, by the destruction of Hannibal’s (a Canaanite) Carthage by a Roman General in 202 BC. But no Japhethite was involved in the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, therefore, could not have completely fulfilled that curse.

Third, the Bible attributes the reasons for the conquest of the Canaanites to their own wickedness and to God’s later promise to Abraham, but never to Noah’s curse. Consider Deut 9:5, “Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

If someone would like to argue that the wickedness mentioned in Deut 9:5 harkens back to Ham’s wickedness transferred to Canaan, then that same person must acknowledge a “Kinist” view of the passing down of the traits (moral and spiritual, not just physical) to their descendants. And I do not think my opponents desire to admit such a thing. In conclusion, I acknowledge that the conquest of Canaan by Joshua was part of Noah’s curse, but it falls short to describe it entirely or even its primary import.

So what was Noah’s Curse? The curse for Ham’s impiety is the subjugation of his whole line to the other two lines of Noah. I define subjugation as “the action of bringing someone or something under domination or control.” The phrase “a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” gives that import. The phrase “a servant of servants” is a Hebraism we find in other places.9 Its most basic import is that they would be the lowest of slaves. But considering the rest of the prophecy, and of history, we ought not to limit this to mere slavery. Many of Ham’s descendants would never be involuntary servants to Noah’s other sons (not even now). However, they would all politically be subjugated (as the prophecy unfolded in time and in world history) to the other two lines.

It is strange to me that so many men only see the conquest of Canaan in this curse. They seem to ignore that this curse involves Japheth also, v.27 “God shall enlarge Japheth, … and Canaan shall be his servant.” The sons of Japheth had literally nothing to do with the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. It cannot only have reference to this conquest. And we must not forget about the Muslims either. The Muslim invaders of traditional Canaanite and Hamite lands of the Middle East and Northern Africa are from the line of Shem. In the 6^th century A.D. they invaded, decimated and overran these parts of the world and went all the way to the Strait of Gibraltar and almost conquered Europe until the battle of Tours in 732 A.D. This Muslim invasion is, therefore, part of the prophecy and part of the subjugation of Ham’s line to Shem’s line. The conquest of Joshua was only part of the curse.

What was Japheth’s Enlargement? – “God shall enlarge Japheth…”

This is the third exegetical question of significance in Noah’s prophecy and involves one of the more cryptic parts of the prophecy. Noah says in v.27, “God shall enlarge Japheth…” It is a play on words for the verb “enlarge” and the name “Japheth” have the same Hebrew root. What does it mean?

A less popular interpretation (and yet one that has some following) is to connect this phrase with the next. These commentators suggest it means that God shall persuade Japheth to believe the gospel and enter the visible church (tents of Shem). They say this on plausible grounds. The verb “enlarge” is often used in Scripture to convey the idea of influence upon the mind – either negatively (deceive) or positively (persuade).10 In Hosea 2:1411 it takes this positive connotation, “Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak comfortably unto her.” However, I think this exegetical point, although it has its merits, also falls short of the full import of this text and for a few reasons.

I remind my readers of the importance of history in interpreting prophecy. It is an indisputable fact of history that the sons of Japheth have developed the most dominant and advanced civilizations in history. Again, it took some time for this prophecy to take full effect. I do not deny the powers of Egypt or Babylon. But by the time of Christ, the Greeks and the Romans had conquered the world. After the time of Christ, the sons of Japheth would continue to advance. Since then, the West has led the world in technology and civilization building. It is true that, at one time, the sun never set on the British empire. Spain and Portugal were also leaders in colonization. There are good reasons to believe that the Chinese and Japanese are also Japhethites. If so, then this only supports the “geographical” enlargement point of view. And currently, two of the greatest nations in the world are Russia and America; and the international language of business is English. Is it not reasonable to think that God would give some indication of such a large and long-lasting dominance? I think so. Thus, considering history, we ought to understand this word as the KJV translators have left it in our Bible. Although the word is used in Scripture to mean “to open” in a cognitive manner, it can also legitimately mean “to open” in a spatial manner. Thus, the idea would be that Japheth would be geographically enlarged. They would expand their physical footprint to cover Europe, Russia, parts of Asia (and probably America). Then, in the formation of the United States, further West and, in the case of the British colonization, even to Africa and Asia.

But how did this “enlargement” occur? Did this occur by supernatural intervention like in the case of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan or was it through ordinary providence and normal causes? It occurred through normal means. As some commentators have put it, the sons of Japheth are industrious, intelligent and vigorous people—after the gospel came but also before the gospel came. The only reasonable way to explain this massive expansion is due to a natural endowment of God. As the Westminster Annotations on this text say, White men became “lords of the world”12 because they had superior gifting by God in natural things (intelligence, virtue, industry, etc). As I mentioned earlier, this endowment was not a result of creation or some supernatural intervention of God upon Japheth after the flood. As we already saw above, Shedd says, “The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”13 I will say more about how the variations of mankind developed in a forthcoming article, but for now we can be satisfied with Shedd’s explanation.

Quotes regarding Japheth’s Enlargement

1. Phillip Henry (1631-1696), a Presbyterian minister and father of the famous commentator Matthew Henry:

“God shall enlarge Japheth as to the things of this life ; but in spiritual things Shem shall have the pre-eminence. Japheth shall have the larger portion, but Shem shall have the sweeter.”14

2. Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) the prominent English Baptist theologian and pastor:

“God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. If this part of the prophecy have respect to temporal dominion, it seems to refer to the posterity of Japheth being formerly straitened, but in the latter ages of the world enabled to extend their conquests, which exactly corresponds with history. For more than two thousand years the empire of the civilized world has in a manner been in the hands of the posterity of Japheth. First the Greeks, after them the Romans, and since the declension of their empire, the different powers of Europe, have entered into the richest possessions of Asia, inhabited by the children of Shem. Add to this, their borders have lately been enlarged beyond the Atlantic, and bid fair to extend over the continent of America.”15

3. Patrick Fairbarin (1805-1874) Minister of the Free Church of Scotland:

“It obviously, indeed, designates his stock generally as the most spreading and energetic of the three-pre-eminent, so far as concerns diffusive operations and active labor in occupying the lands and carrying forward the business of the world and thus naturally tending, as the event has proved, to push their way, even in a civil and territorial respect, into the tents of Shem… In a word, it was through the line of Shem that the gifts of grace and the blessings of salvation were more immediately to flow-the Shemites were to have them at first hand; but the descendants of Japheth were also to participate largely in the good. And by reason of their more extensive ramifications and more active energies, they were to be mainly instrumental in working upon the condition of the world.”16

4. Thomas Murphy (1823-1900) an American Presbyterian minister:

“This enlargement is the most striking point in the history of Japheth, who is the progenitor of the inhabitants of Europe, Asia, and America, except the region between the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, the Euxine, the Caspian, and the mountains beyond the Tigris, which was the main seat of the Shemites. This expansive power refers not only to the territory and the multitude of the Japhethites, but also to their intellectual and active faculties. The metaphysics of the Hindoos, the philosophy of the Greeks, the military prowess of the Romans, and the modern science and civilization of the world, are due to the race of Japheth. And though the moral and the spiritual were first developed among the Shemites, yet the Japhethites have proved themselves capable of rising to the heights of these lofty themes, and have elaborated that noble form of human speech, which was adopted, in the providence of God, as best fitted to convey to mankind that further development of Old Testament truth which is furnished in the New.”

It is of note that he seems to call the “Hindoos” the sons of Japheth. I am not sure about this statement, but it seems plausible that upper-caste whiter Indians are historically Aryan.

5. Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) Dutch-American Scholar and father of J.G Vos:

“…The territorial rendering of ‘enlarge’ carrying with it the reference of ‘him’ to Japheth deserves the preference. The use of the name Elohim favours it, since it is not of Elohim but of Jehovah that such a gracious indwelling is predicated. Understanding it of Japhetites overrunning Shemitic lands, we should not, however, allegorize the statement, as though a spiritual dwelling together between Shemites and Japhetites were referred to. A real political conquest is intended. But ultimately such physical conquest will have for its result the coming of a religious blessing to Japheth. Occupying the tents of Shem he will find the God of Shem, the God of redemption and of revelation, there. The prophecy, both in its proximate political import and as to its ultimate spiritual consequences, was fulfilled through the subjugating of Shemitic territory by the Greeks and Romans.”17

6. J. G. Vos (1903-1983) the Reformed Presbyterian minister:

“It is probable that the literal meaning of “enlarge” is intended. The meaning, then, would be that God will enable the descendants of Japheth to occupy large portions of the world.”18

What does it mean to “dwell in the tents of Shem”?

Commentators largely agree that this phrase has redemptive implications with the engrafting in of the Gentiles into the visible church. Some refer this also to the Japhethite expansion and cite the conquest of Shemite lands by the Greeks and the Romans. But this is short-sighted. The verb “to dwell” that is used here has the connotation of friendship and fellowship. It is the verb commonly used for God to dwell in the tabernacle and the temple. Some cite 1 Chr 5:10 as a reason to take this phrase in a hostile sense,19 “And in the days of Saul they made war with the Hagarites, who fell by their hand: and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the east land of Gilead.” The problem is that the verb “dwelt” in 1 Chr 5:10 is different than the verb in Gen 9:27. In 1 Chr 5:10, the verb could just as easily be translated “inhabited” and thus does carry a negative connotation.

Therefore, we ought to see how this phrase predicts what we all know happened after the resurrection of Christ. The gospel spread west. Paul went to Rome and to Spain, etc. Although the Roman church would later apostatize, and the Greek orthodox would follow a similar fate, it does not change the fact that the Christian church primarily took root in the west and among a large portion of Japheth. We also should not forget the Protestant Reformation. Reformers like Luther, Calvin and Knox recovered the purity of the ancient faith and these were all sons of Japheth. Luther even cited this verse to explain the reformation in Germany.20

Additionally, we ought also to remember the promises of Scripture that will be revealed to Abraham and in the New Testament. Just because Ham is not given any spiritual blessing in this prophecy does not mean his line is excluded permanently (or even in the Old Testament) from salvation (Rahab was a Canaanite and so were the Gibeonites). Christ commanded his disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19). We do not condemn the Hamite to perpetual spiritual doom. Instead, it has been (and ought still to be) the conviction of many White Protestant Christians to bring the gospel to Africa and the Muslim-dominated Middle East. Thus, just because only Shem and Japheth receive a spiritual blessing, does not permanently exclude Hamites from salvation in Christ.

Does this prophecy have only redemptive implications?

O. Palmer Robertson wrote a scholarly article in 1998 which, in large part, was written to claim, “that the passage cannot be interpreted purely or principally in a politico-ethnic sense —particularly as it relates to the new covenant era… instead it is the curse of being separated from the redemptive activity of God that is implied in the passage.”21 However, the question is not one of “either or,” but “both and.” In his article, he suggests subtly that it does have natural implications, but in his emphasis, he takes it away.

I do not deny that the redemptive-historical interpretation has the main place. The Bible is not a book on Ethnology, but a book on Soteriology (the way of salvation through Christ). However, the interpretive habit of the day is to utterly ignore the natural implications of this passage. Because Robertson and others have correctly indicated the redemptive implications of this passage and connected it to the engrafting in of the Gentiles under the New Testament, I will not repeat that claim. I believe it. But what is needed now is to show that this prophecy also has natural implications for the races and nations of men.

The curse of Canaan “a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren” most certainly had spiritual implications. Some commentators worded it as an excommunication. Shem would have God for his God, not Ham and not Japheth (for quite some time). This is true and this is spiritual and redemptive. But it most certainly would also have natural implications. Besides the supernatural intervention of Joshua’s conquest, this part of the prophecy took place over time through normal means. The Shemite Muslim hordes would dominate other descendants of Canaan and the Hamites by their natural superiority in 6^th century. To ignore the politico-ethnic implications of this prophecy is an error. Furthermore, you have the statements I have already proven about Japheth’s enlargement. His dominion over large portions of the globe took place through natural means. History proves that Europeans were naturally superior to other men (especially Hamites), from the history of the Greeks and Romans, to that of the British Empire.

Robertson claimed, “So this prophecy provides a remarkable broadlined sketch of the history of the nations in relation to God’s purposes of redemption.”22 He is correct as far as he goes. The problem is that he does not go far enough and ignores the political and natural implications of the prophecy for mankind. As part of God’s purpose of redemption in this prophecy, there is also a natural endowment to the sons of Noah that is different and unequal.

Clarification: “Is White supremacy true?”

“White Supremacy” is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, sin in American society today. It may be true that, in the past, some who were called “White Supremacists” were guilty of sin. However, not all were or are sinful.

Today, it does not matter the character and testimony of a White supremacist. It does not matter how he has shown love to his fellow man in acts of service or in preaching the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). In our day of egalitarianism, as soon as someone identifies as a “White supremacist” they will be canceled, slandered, persecuted and even physically harmed. Truth is not as important as keeping the social egalitarianism of the day. You can call me a White supremacist if you like, but I prefer to be called a Race Realist. You can attribute all the sinful deeds of the KKK to me if you like. But it does not change the truth, and it would be uncharitable to me and those like me. I do not affirm everything that has ever been done by so-called “White supremacists,” and I acknowledge that some of the activity of such was indeed sinful (but suspect some of the reports of it have been embellished). But it is not a sin to state reality.

The White man has demonstrated a natural superiority over the other races ever since Alexander the Great, and that dominance does not seem to be fading. It is especially true if one includes parts of Asia (Japan and China) as sons of Japheth. Even among the liberals and atheistic elites—Whites are still leading although in an unbiblical direction. In so far as nature is concerned, they are dominant and trend-setters.

It may be that in the future; the Kings of the East will arise (Rev 16:12) to ascendency. After all, the Shemites were blessed and have a heritage of an advanced civilization (i.e. Saudi Arabia, India, etc). But I doubt that the sons of Ham will ever reach the same or superior place in civilization building as Japheth and Shem. This does not mean that every Shemite or Japhethite is naturally superior to every single Hamite. In this article, I speak in generalities (races, not individuals). Neither is every male stronger than every single female. Yet, we know what is true about the sexes generally (1 Peter 3:7). I freely acknowledge that Thomas Sowell is intelligent, but he is a rarity among the Black race. And even if the gospel were to permeate Africa and a revival and reformation was to occur in their Christian churches like in Europe in times past, it will not supply what nature has not given. As I elaborated in a previous article, the power of the Spirit in salvation focuses upon the soul on this side of heaven, not the body (see article 5 “Race and Grace”). Faith in Christ does not increase one’s natural capacity of intelligence, nor make someone an Olympic 100m sprinter. The Holy Spirit makes people godly, not smart or fast.

Furthermore, if someone has been endowed with more natural gifts, he ought to take heed to the exhortation of Paul (1 Cor 4:7) and boast not, “For who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” Let those who have been given much serve Christ more (Lk 12:48). Let them be humble and serve God with a due consideration of their talents (Matt 25:14-30). It is not a sign of godliness for White people to reject this natural heritage, instead it is laziness and ingratitude, and they will give an account for it. Let those who are less naturally endowed not covet others and be thankful for what they have (Col 3:15b). God has not made us equal, and we ought to submit to His providence and use all that we have for His glory.

Older commentators on the natural inequality among the races:

Below are quotes from the past that show how some respected Christian authors understood the inequality of the races. They speak about the races possessing different strengths and weaknesses which developed, not because gospel light changed their natural constitutions, but because they were made differently in the providence of God. Please note that only a few of the quotes come from a discussion of Gen 9:25-27, but the same point is still asserted.

1. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) said in his commentary on Gal 3:28-29:

“Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule. For we observe in the unity of faith that there are no such distinctions. Yet within the orders of this life they persist.”23

2. Francis Turretin (1623–1687) was a Swiss-Italian Reformed theologian and one of the most influential figures in Protestant scholasticism during the 17th century.

“Nor if the law of nature makes all men equal with regard to nature does it follow that they are equal with regard to qualities and external condition.”24

3. Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661) was a beloved Scottish Presbyterian minister and theologian.

“The degree or order of subjection natural is a subjection in respect of gifts or age: so Aristotle (Politics 1.3) says, ‘Some are by nature servants.’ His meaning is good, that some gifts of nature, such as natural wisdom or aptitude to govern, have made some men of gold, fitter to command, and some of iron and clay, fitter to be servants and slaves...Aquinas (II-II. q. 57. art. 3). Driedo (De libert. Christ. bk.1, p. 8). following Aristotle, (Politics 7.14) hold, though man had never sinned, there should have been a sort of dominion of the more gifted and wiser above the less wise and weaker, not antecedent from nature, properly, but consequent, for the utility and good of the weaker, insofar as it is good for the weaker to be guided by the stronger, which cannot be denied to have some ground in nature.”25

How dare Rutherford say such things? Did he not know that such things would not be accepted by American culture in 2025? If someone objects and says that Rutherford is only speaking about individual men, then I retort, “Why limit the idea to mere individuals? Why cannot it not also be true among nations and races of men?” It seems to be only logical to do so, especially given known facts of world history.

4. John Calvin affirmed a prelapsarian inequality:

“If Adam stood upright, all men would be alike in their integrity. I do not now speak of special gifts: for there would have been, I allow, a difference of endowments had nature remained perfect; but as to eternal life the condition of all would have been the same.”26

5. Albert Barnes (1798–1870) was a prominent American Presbyterian minister. Although his theological orthodoxy is up for question, it is still interesting to read his comments on Gal 3:28.

“[Gal 3:28] does not mean that all are on a level in regard to talents, comforts, or wealth; but it means only that all people are on a level “in regard to religion.” This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that people are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society.”27

6. Charles Hodge (1797–1878) was a prominent American Presbyterian minister and theologian.

“It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character; we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, without asking ourselves any questions as to the origin of these distinguishing characteristics. And if we do raise that question, although we are forced to answer it by admitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is the instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind.”28

7. Charles Hodge wrote again:

“The Irish people have always been remarkable for their fidelity; the English for honesty; the Germans for truthfulness. These national traits, as revealed in individuals, are not the effect of self-discipline. They are innate, hereditary dispositions, as obviously as the physical, mental, or emotional peculiarities by which one people is distinguished from another. And yet by the common judgment of men this fact in no degree detracts from the moral character of these dispositions.”29

8. Charles Hodge wrote again:

“It is moreover a historical fact universally admitted, that character, within certain limits, is transmissible from parents to children. Every nation, separate tribe, and even every extended family of men, has its physical, mental, social, and moral peculiarities which are propagated from generation to generation. No process of discipline or culture can transmute a Tatar into an Englishman, or an Irishman into a Frenchman. The Bourbons, the Hapsburgs, and other historical families, have retained and transmitted their peculiarities for ages. We may be unable to explain this, but we cannot deny it. No one is born an absolute man, with nothing but generic humanity belonging to him. Every one is born a man in a definite state, with all those characteristics physical, mental, and moral, which make up his individuality. There is nothing therefore in the doctrine of hereditary depravity out of analogy with providential facts.”30

9. Philip Schaff (1819–1893) was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian, ecclesiastical historian, and ecumenical leader.

“Wherever the governmental idea holds the mercenary so completely in check and yields to the influence of Christian morality, it may be a wholesome training school for inferior races, as it is in fact with the African negroes, until they are capable to govern themselves.”31

Philip Schaff is no supporter of slavery, but he uses the words “inferior races” which proves both that he understood there to be races of men and inferior races.

10. W.G.T. Shedd (1820-1894) an American Presbyterian theologian, biblical scholar, and professor said:

“The Hebrews were inferior to the Greeks and Romans in merely humanistic characteristics: inferior in literature, art and science. They produced very little in these provinces.”32

“Redemption ... does not alter the finite nature of man.”33

11. A.A. Hodge (1823-1886) was an influential American Presbyterian theologian, educator, and preacher. In this quote, he refers to a certain human principle that has implications for race and nations.

“The grand peculiarity of humanity is that while each individual is a free responsible moral agent, yet we constitute a race, reproduced under the law of generation, and each new-born agent is educated and his character formed under social conditions. Hence everywhere the free-will of the parent becomes the destiny of the child. Hence results the representative character of progenitors, and the inherited character and destiny of all races, nations, and families.”34

12. A.A. Hodge also wrote:

“On the other hand, the presumptions of reason and the texts of Scripture must be interpreted in a sense consistent with the palpable facts of human history and of God’s daily providential dispensations. If it is unjust in principle for God to be partial in his distributions of spiritual good, it can be no less unjust for him to be partial in his distribution of temporal good. As, a matter of fact, however, we find that God in the exercise of his absolute sovereignty makes the greatest possible distinctions among men from birth, and independently of their own merits in the allotments both of temporal good and of the essential means of salvation. One child is born to health, honor, wealth, to the possession of a susceptible heart and conscience, and to all the best means of grace as his secure inheritance. Many others are born to disease, shame, poverty, an obtuse conscience and hardened heart, and absolute heathenish darkness and ignorance of Christ. If God may not be partial to individuals, why may he be partial to nations, and how can his dealings with heathen nations and the children of the abandoned classes in the nominally Christian cities be accounted for?”35

13. J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) was a pivotal American Presbyterian theologian:

Timothy Cho reported Machen’s views on the nature of man in his online article dated in 2018. I do not know where Cho got this information, but I trust it to be an accurate reflection of Machen. Machen who was a Southern aristocrat. Cho says:

“Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, the head of Princeton Seminary at the time, is known for his writings against slavery and segregation. Machen writes of a two-hour argument with Warfield regarding the integration of the Princeton Seminary dormitories, of which he claims, “My total impression was that, despite his remarkable gifts… [Warfield] is bitterly lacking in appreciation of the facts of human nature.”36

Although Cho writes to rebuke Machen, this information is helpful in knowing something about Machen’s mind. I have had a few conversations with men, especially those of British descent, who have not had daily interaction with the average African-American and I have walked away thinking the same thing as Machen—they lack much knowledge about human nature.

14. J. Gresham Machen, in a 1935 radio address entitled Life Founded upon Truth, he said:

“Frankly, I do not believe in the separate existence of an Oriental mind or an occidental mind or an ancient mind or a medieval mind or a modern mind. I do believe, indeed, that different races of mankind have different aptitudes or talents. It is perhaps that French writers have the special gift of clearness, while Germans are characterized by a power of metaphysical speculation and by a certain solidity and thoroughness of learning. It must be admitted, indeed, that some German writers are admirably clear and some French writers, on the other hand, are awfully muddled. But still I suppose it is true to a very considerable extent that clearness is especially a French virtue of style. I have a great respect also for the intellectual gifts of Oriental peoples.”37

15. Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian, philosopher, and educator.

“Even as one star differs in brightness from another star; even as all physical bodies are not the same, but can be distinguished as a human body or an animal or a fish or a bird; even as in the state of glory there will be a diversity of gifts and strengths and various degrees of blessedness; so too the human race has unfolded on earth according to God’s will, in an endless diversity of persons and powers, relationships and capacities, talents and gifts, possessions and goods.”38

16. Loraine Boettner (1901–1990) was an influential American theologian, teacher, and prolific author in the Reformed tradition. He wrote in 1932:

“Apart from this election of individuals to life, there has been what we may call a national election, or a divine predestination of nations and communities to a knowledge of true religion and to the external privileges of the Gospel. God undoubtedly does choose some nations to receive much greater spiritual and temporal blessings than others. This form of election has been well illustrated in the Jewish nation, in certain European nations and communities, and in America. The contrast is very striking when we compare these with other nations such as China, Japan, India, etc.”39

17. Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), in his comments on Noah’s prophecy in Gen 9 says:

“The supernatural process of redemption remains in contact with the natural development of the race. These influential traits were typical traits. They were the source of great racial dispositions. The event took place at a critical juncture where no significant event could fail to influence history for ages to come.”40

18. E.J. Young (1907-1968) was an influential American Presbyterian theologian, Old Testament scholar, and professor. He wrote in 1964:

“In our desire to make all men welcome in the church there is one fact that must not be overlooked. Men are not equal. There is danger of embracing the modern political doctrine of egalitarianism, a doctrine which is thoroughly unscriptural.”41

This quote is especially helpful for, as Young points out, this truth was largely assumed until more recent times.

Conclusion

The doctrine of the human race is an important issue in our day. Racial differences ought to be acknowledged. They ought also to be recognized according to what God has done through His providence—as Noah’s prophecy indicates. This includes not just the mere recognition of the idea of racial difference, but also the quantification of that difference objectively. Shem was blessed, Japheth was enlarged and Ham was cursed. I have not elaborated on various specific differences in this article, but what I have done is provide a rationale and biblical defense of the idea itself.

But, to better feel the weight of racial difference and the error of racial egalitarianism, we turn from arguments from Scripture to arguments from nature. What does world history, good science and honest experience teach us about racial difference? This will be the topic of the next article.

In the previous article, I defended the term race as appropriate for referring to the variations of mankind (White, Black, etc). I described the current confusion in the church over the term, provided quotations from respected Christian authors who used the term race in the same way as above and explained that usage of the term from the Scriptures.

But before I write directly on the doctrine of race, I need to clarify a few points on its relationship with the grace of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ so as not to be misunderstood. The topic of race is highly emotional and controversial; therefore, those who write on the topic have a greater need to communicate with sensitivity and clarity. Furthermore, my readers need to be encouraged not to impute evil when it is not present.

In this article, I use the term grace as the saving work of Christ applied by His Holy Spirit to all penitent sinners within mankind. Consider these nine points that all involve the idea of the relationship between race and grace.

1. An individual person who possesses the strengths which are characteristic of his race has no ground for boasting.

Paul says in 1 Cor 4:7-8, “For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” Here, Paul has spiritual blessings in view, yet this principle also applies to natural blessings and gifts (athleticism, intelligence, memory capacity, etc.) for they too are from the Lord. God gave the natural gifting of craftsmanship to Bezaleel the son of Uri (Exodus 31:3-5). He gave Asahel the gift of speed (2 Samuel 2:18). Yet, their gifts gave them no place to boast, for they all are from the Lord.

If anyone is more gifted, or if anyone has received more grace (Rom 12:3), then there is a call to greater humility and greater service, not to self-glory and boasting. Jesus says, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required...” (Luke 12:48a). Therefore, regardless of one’s race, let him be sober and consider what he has been given and make good use of it for God’s glory as a good steward of the manifold grace of God (1 Peter 4:10).

2. The Church of Jesus Christ is multi-racial.

Paul says in Rom 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

In this context, the “Greek” refers to all non-Jewish people. Furthermore, Christ told His disciples to go into all nations and make disciples (Matt 28:19). In heaven, God’s people will gather before the throne of God and they will be from all types of races and ethnicities. Rev 7:9-10, “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

Furthermore, the reference to Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem in Gen 9:27 was a promise that his descendants would enter the covenant people of God and be blessed with the gospel. We see this played out in history as the gospel travelled west across Europe after Christ’s resurrection. However, that fact does not mean that Ham’s descendants are all cursed to hell forever or that the gospel is just for Japheth’s descendants. Instead, the New Testament emphasizes that, with the coming of Christ, the gospel is to go forth to all people. It is no longer “come and see”, but “go and tell.” Christ saves sinners from all races. I hope and long, as many other Christians, for the day wherein the gospel will be so widespread across the globe that it will be said before the coming of Christ that, “the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Hab 2:14).

3. Because the soul is the immediate object of the Spirit’s sanctification, a particular sin that is perceived to be a common trait of a particular ethnicity or race will be mortified.

Paul says some interesting words in Tit 1:12-13, “... the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith...”

On one hand, he sees that a certain ethnicity (Cretians) is known for a particular sin, yet on the other hand, he also assumes that the grace of God in the gospel will change their heart. Hence, he wants them to be rebuked so that they may be sound in the faith. It is not my point to say that certain ethnicities have certain sinful propensities—Paul makes that clear for me. Instead, my point is to show that the Holy Spirit mortifies sinful ethnic propensities.

Imagine a particular region of the world that has yet to experience a revival and reformation like Europe did in the 1500s. How will that region be different once the gospel comes in force? It is my contention that the people of that region, by the power of the Spirit, will be greatly changed by the gospel. To the degree that their society is currently known for idolatry, adultery, murder, matriarchy, pride etc.; it will be replaced (more or less) with the opposite graces.

We must not forget the powerful words of Paul when he tells the Corinthians that they were horrible sinners: fornicators, perverts, thieves, covetous, drunkards etc. But what did Christ, by His grace, do for such wicked Corinthians? “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11).

In this present life, the gospel transforms the soul. Of course, I do not deny the resurrection and, ultimately, the work of Christ will also transform the bodies of His people. But now, the soul is the immediate object of Christ’s sanctification. God has chosen for Christians, on this side of heaven, to still become diseased and still suffer physical death. Therefore, we ought not to expect the natural capacities of a convert to be changed when he becomes a Christian. Instead, we ought to expect a moral and spiritual renovation.

To think that a certain ethnic group will always be dominated by a particular sin is a denial of Paul’s words in Titus 1 and overlooks the power of the Holy Spirit in sanctification. However, it is also clear that a certain ethnicity or race may struggle longer with certain sinful propensities just as an individual convert may struggle with a particular sin that was a habit prior to his conversion. But this propensity will not prevail over the power of the Holy Spirit, “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).

4. Improving a race’s natural gifts is not the gospel.

There is one gospel for all races which is that Christ reconciles believing sinners to a holy God through His person and work. It brings sinners of all races into communion with God. The gospel for the Black man is not that his nation will develop nuclear submarines. The gospel for the White man is not that a member of his race will win the next 100m dash in the Olympics. The gospel for the Mexican is not that a member of his race will win the next international spelling bee. This is not what Paul meant when he said, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phil 4:13). Instead, Paul has a spiritual contest in view, namely, how to suffer faithfully in his service to Christ (see v.10-12).

There is no moral fault if Blacks are less intelligent as other races. There is no moral fault if Whites are inferior sprinters to other races. Why would we shame Blacks or Whites in thinking this way about their natural differences? The gospel is not, “Believe in Christ and your nation’s engineers will develop nuclear submarines.” This is not the hope of the nations.

The reason why this is important is because some Christian leaders teach that the differences we see around the world among the races will be “equalized” once the gospel comes in equal force to all places, nations and continents. Where is that in the Bible? Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel increases the natural capacity of a race’s intelligence or athleticism? It does not.

Nations will be spiritually and morally transformed to the degree that the gospel permeates them, but some nations may still be lacking in natural advancements and technology comparatively to other nations. The Christian leaders that teach this version of egalitarianism are not much different than the liberal missiology that J. Gresham Machen fought against in the 1920s. It is not the gospel.

5. Christian churches must seek to evangelize their own kinsmen and fulfill the Great Commission according to the need of each.

The Great Commission in Matthew 28 is not teaching that every Christian or every congregation must be involved in every part of the world, but that the church collectively will go to the whole world. In other words, although every Christian and every congregation must have an eye to their own family and kinsmen (1 Tim 5:8, Rom 9:1-3), this does not warrant them to neglect world missions. This idea is affirmed in the Westminster standards in the Larger Catechism when it says in Question 35 that the covenant of grace is to be held forth “to all nations.”

Historically, the White Protestant nations of Europe placed a huge emphasis on world missions. From England and America (also Holland, Scotland and others) were sent many missionaries (Adoniram Judson, William Carey, David Livingstone, etc). In recent years, this trend has continued.

It does not matter one’s race or what race one is seeking to reach—world missions should be a priority for ever church—according to her means. Parents need to be willing to give up their beloved children to fulfill Christ’s command in the Great Commission and ministers need to answer the call to missions when Christ lays it upon their heart. But, natural affection, patriotism and a desire to see one’s own country become the Lord’s (Ps 33:12) has its place also.

6. White Christians must consider current trends in the world and their nation, when weighing the importance of world missions.

This is a continuation of the previous point. Consider the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:41-43. He prays that the stranger would come to the Temple and worship the Lord and then says: “…that all people of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name.” Solomon expresses the heart of the former godly Jews who desired the Gentiles to come to faith, whereas the latter Jews during the time of Christ (and to this day), were filled with bitter malice toward them. Here, Solomon is an example to every magistrate and every Christian to have love for people of different ethnicities and races. However, when pondering Solomon’s prayer, it is important to understand his own context. What was his context?

Israel, during the reign of Solomon, was not under any imminent threat from a foreign power. They were not being diminished, attacked, nor harassed. It was literally the peak of Israelite power. Therefore, it would make sense that, in a later day, when the enemies of God’s people sought to destroy and kill them (Ezra 4:3) or when the Jews were largely unevangelized in the NT (Gal 2:7), there would be a different focus and emphasis upon their own Jewish people. In the former, Ezra focused on his own kinsmen and in the latter, Peter focused on his own kinsmen.

Likewise, during the great missionary enterprises of the 18th and 19th century wherein Adoniram Judson, William Carey, and David Livingstone served the Lord, England and America were in a far better spiritual condition than they are now. Today, in a world of anti-White hatred, Whites still must have a gospel love for people of different ethnicity, but it is also very understandable if the Great Commission does not take the priority or focus as it formerly did during a previous age. It is not a contradiction, but only consistent with natural affection and with common sense. White nations around the world are under enormous judgment. They are being invaded by a godless horde and reproducing at an alarming low rate. Therefore, although White Christians must not completely neglect world missions, the current state of their own people needs to be seriously weighed in the balance.

7. Like any good thing, natural affection can be taken to unbiblical extremes.

Natural affection has many different forms. Perhaps the most obvious would be the love that people, even the unconverted, show to their immediate family (1 Tim 5:8). Another form is love for one’s own racial or ethnic group. Paul is an example of this form and he is to be imitated (Rom 9:1-3). However, one’s desire for the salvation of their own people can be taken to extremes. Any good thing can be twisted because of the nature of sin and the corruption of the heart.

John Girardeau, a Southern Presbyterian, is a good example of the balance. He loved his own people and served his fellow White southerners as a minister of the gospel and professor. But he is probably best known for his pastoring and preaching to Black congregations - even after the Civil War.1

Today, the temptation for White people (especially those who are sensitive to the spirit of the day) is to neglect entirely other people from different races. Yes, the BLM movement has put a sour taste in our mouth. Yes, Whites in many ways are recipients of more racial hatred than any other race in America (see article 1 Race and Racism). But when a White person desires to protect his own people from anti-White hatred, he must not neglect the opportunities he has to share the gospel with them in the public square (street preaching, tract distribution, Bible studies, church invitations, etc.). He must try his best not to become inordinately bitter and hardened. After all, the liberal Black population in the USA was made so, in large part, by liberal Whites and Jews, and much of the anti-White hatred2 and Marxist immigration policies3 in historic White nations is led and propagated by liberal Whites and Jews.

8. The gospel of Jesus Christ not only reconciles sinners to God, but to other sinners.

Paul writes to the church in Philippi, “If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that he be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind” (Phil 2:1-2). Here he exhorts Christians to be at peace with one another because of the work of Christ. He reinforces this exhortation with a call to humility (v.3), a call to self-sacrifice (v.4), and with a view toward the example of the humility of Christ (v.5-8). He then calls upon two members of the church in Phillipi to be reconciled. “I beseech Euodias, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord” (Phil 4:2). This call to unity is possible on the basis of their union with Christ.

Christ is the one who came to bring peace and “… good will toward men” (Luke 2:14). This reconciliation between sinners through the gospel is illustrated also in the Lord’s Supper. 1 Cor 10:16-17 makes this twofold communion clear: “…The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”

By faith, God’s people spiritually commune with God and, by virtue of their union with Christ, also communion with one another in the Lord’s Supper. And this Sacrament visible depicts the unity God’s people have with one another—not just among their own kinsmen—but across racial lines. However, unbelievers, who know not the forgiveness of sins nor possess the Holy Spirit, cannot fulfill these exhortations or truly experience this unity.

Whatever practical and political methods a godly civil magistrate makes towards the resolution of race relations in his nation, no true spiritual peace or harmony will be achieved without the gospel. Not only will nations continue to war against each other, but tribes, families and individuals—to some degree. It is the gospel which brings spiritual peace and unity.

Spiritual peace is not obtained by barriers and geographic boundaries. A form of peace may result from such boundaries (Acts 17:26). But without the gospel of Jesus Christ applied to that nation, there will be no spiritual and lasting peace. Thus, the hope for peace among mankind will ultimately be found not in any political solution, but in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is encouraging to those who have seen the racial tension between Blacks and Whites in the USA and the animosity in more recent decades between the many other races and ethnicities pouring into the US border. There is hope for greater reconciliation and greater peace through the gospel.

For example, imagine if a large majority of the Black population in America rejected the prosperity gospel and the liberal doctrine so characteristic of their people? Imagine if many inner-city Blacks were converted? Imagine if there were Black denominations holding to orthodox theology and not controlled by the liberal left? This would change hearts and, therefore, significantly change race relations. We cannot forget the hope that we have in Christ’s saving work. He not only reconciles repentant sinners to the Father, but also to other sinners.

9. Christians who believe in natural difference among the races are not automatically heterodox or heretical.

The term “heretic” has been wrongly thrown around in recent conversations regarding those who hold to various views on real racial difference. My readers would be wise to hear the words of Rev. Gavin Beers on this matter. He and others may not like some of the ideas I have described so far, but labeling a man who believes in natural difference as a heretic, when he is not, is a big problem. Pastor Beers said:

“Well, a Kinist may be a heretic, but Kinism or race realism does not ultimately deny the fundamental and cardinal truths of the gospel. And so, while we oppose this, we must not sinfully misrepresent men. The people that I’ve encountered believe the fundamental truths of the gospel. They believe that the gospel is for all men. They believe in evangelism and worldwide missionary endeavor.”4

I am neither denying nor refusing the label Kinist. I ask my readers to read my forth coming articles and make their own determination. If I am a Kinist—so be it. I am not overly concerned about nomenclature. The meaning of the terms used is what is important.

Conclusion:

Having clarified a few matters regarding the relationship of race and grace, I will proceed with the doctrine of race itself in my next article. Let us try and have a reasonable dialogue and test the spirits (1 John 4:1).

A big part of the fame of Abbot and Costello came from their well-known skit, “Who’s on first?”1 It is a classic example of “talking past one another.” The words are heard, they enter the ears, but the meaning is not understood.

This skit is a helpful illustration to describe the confusion that exists today among Christians debating the issues of race. In today’s discourse a large part of the confusion arises because church officers are changing the meaning of race, replacing it with the word culture, and coining the ambiguous phrase people group. In the end, I’m afraid that an actual shift in thought has occurred and not just the words we use to describe them. I suppose the Protestant Church could stop using the word sacrament to describe the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, but that would be unhelpful because the church has used it for centuries and it is well understood—although not being found itself in our English Bibles.

Either way, one reason why you should consider pondering the racial conflict of today is due to how much confusion there is on the issue. This confusion needs to be cleared up so that we can proceed with a meaningful discussion and arrive at a reasonable solution.

In this article I will do three things. First, I will describe the confusion that currently exists by using a few men as a sampling of those who are contributing to the confusion. Second, I will demonstrate the historical use of the term race in American and western society from well-respected authors which demonstrate the historic understanding of the term. Third, I will provide a biblical explanation for race according to the historic and second usage of the word. I understand the term race to mean both: (1) the common brotherhood of all men as part of the one human race (2) and also the different people we see around the globe that come from different ancestry or lineage (Black, White, etc).

Part 1 – Confusion in the church

We now turn to the first section. Consider five points regarding the confusion in today’s public forum on race.

1. There is confusion over whether race is a biological reality.

I remember a conversion I had with a sincere young Christian man who was very bothered by Michael Spangler’s articles on Christian Race Realism.2 I told him how, in some corners, the church was denying the existence of human races and that others in the visible church were bothered by the new trend. He turned his head and said, “What? People are denying the existence of human races?” I said, “Yeah, there are some people that are denying the reality of race – like that White people and Black people are from different races of men. Instead, they insist that there is only one race—the human race and that this is the only proper way to use the term.” He looked at me with a confused face. He then made a comment about how human races are self-evident and that obviously there are biological differences among mankind that warrant the use of such a term. This man firmly understood that race was a biological reality and yet, he was also firmly opposed to Mr. Spangler’s articles.

The reason why this personal anecdote is important is because it captures what was historically a common consensus but is now fading. People used to believe their “lying eyes”, but now they trust the “experts.” Some of my readers, especially if you are unaware of the current debate on race issues, would be surprised to hear that there are credentialed teachers in the church denying that race is a biological reality. But I am afraid to say—this confusion exists.

Dr. David VanDrunen, a theological professor at Westminster Seminary in California, wrote an article back in 2021. He said:

“Perhaps the most important thing to say about race, in the typical American sense of the word, is that it does not exist. Unlike sex, it has no biological reality, and unlike ethnicity, it has no cultural reality. The human community simply is not divided into half-a-dozen (or whatever) racial groups united by distinct genetic markers or a common culture.”3

It is important to note that he admits that there is a history of usage agreeable to the second part of my definition above when he writes, “… in the typical American sense of the word...” This is telling. Furthermore, it is alarming to me that this man is still followed by many as a faithful expositor of God’s word. This teaching is nonsense and is confusing the people of God. Whatever percentage of biological difference experts attribute to the human races, that difference is enough to account for what we see around the world with our “lying eyes.”4

2. There is confusion on whether race is a practical reality.

Many others refrain from going as far as VanDrunen. They will affirm the reality of biological difference, but in their manner of speaking, they deny that this difference has any practical significance and assert that the term should be abandoned. Therefore, they deny the existence of race in practice. They will refuse to use the term race to describe a subcategory of mankind and firmly insist that there is only one race—the human race. Of course, it is true that there is only one human race and that usage of the term is well established. The point is that they deny the second usage of the term.

For example, Owen Strachan, a popular theological professor and writer, said:

“We are all one human race. We were made one human race from the beginning. Every person is an image bearer... Every one of every skin color is equally an image bearer... We are all different shades of melanin. We are one human race. We are not different races. Acts 17:26—we are one human race.”5

Pastor Darrell Harrison said:

“I have a one verse apologetic for you against the idea, the worldly idea of race. One verse. It is Acts 17:26…. It says, ‘and he,’ that is God, ‘made from one man,’ that one man being Adam, ‘Every Nation on the face of the earth.’ That word ‘nation’ in the Greek is not speaking about geographical boundaries...that word in the Greek is the word ‘ethnos’ from where we get the word ethnic… It is ethnicity. It is not race.”6

Unfortunately, his argument does not follow (non sequitur). No person in this debate denies the idea of nations. It is a question regarding the idea of race. He would need to provide further analysis. The comment generated a hearty applause from the crowd, but the more discerning understand that he has not proved his point.

Pastor Voddie Baucham said in a popular sermon on YouTube:

“There is only one race. There has always been one race. There will always be one race—all descended from Noah, who was descended from Adam. There is but one race.... Stop using race as a category. If you believe Genesis 10... why would we ever use race as a category? ... I despise being called African-American. I believe it is a racist term... There is less than a 0.2% genetic difference between any two people in this room. ... We are all the same color. The color in your skin and the color in my skin all comes from the same chemical—it is called melanin.”7

There are three things to note about Rev. Baucham’s quotation. First, he did not completely deny all biological difference. Second, he commanded the audience to not use the term. Ironically, he still refers to racism—as if that is a thing—but how can there be racism if race does not exist? Maybe we should call it Ethnicisim? Third, he denied the historic second use of the term race along with Strachan and Harrison.

In the end, I find all these men to be unhelpful and confusing. No orthodox Christian denies the unity of the race as one species created equally in the image of God. But to urge Christians to stop using this term today in its second meaning, as it has been commonly used in the past, is confusing. Their methodology is a practical denial of the reality of race. I suspect the common person on the street proves wiser than the “educated elite” on this matter.

3. There is confusion over the term “people group.”

I have noticed a strong tendency among preachers to use the term people group instead of race. The problem with this phrase is that it is ambiguous and frequently takes equivocal meanings by the same speaker in the same context. In other words, some men recognize the reality of the second usage of term race, but instead of using the historic term, switch to a new term—people group.

Dr. Frank Smith, in his book Race, Church and Society, defends both uses of the term race as I described above, but is still unclear. He writes:

“This book began by discussing the whole idea of what is meant by the term ‘race.’ It was noted that, properly speaking, ‘race’ refers to all of mankind, but that the term can also be used in a metaphorical way to refer to a subset of humanity, such as with respect to ethnicity. These various ‘races’ or, better yet, people groups, though sharing a common humanity via common parentage of Adam and Eve, nevertheless are distinct, having been established by God.”8

If Dr. Smith would like to use the phrase people group and the term race synonymously, he has that right. However, the confusing part is that he also uses the phrase people group in his book to describe a different idea. In the following quote, the phrase seems to be synonymous with nation and tribe:

“One does not have to accept Dr. Custance’s particular interpretation or conclusions, in order to acknowledge that various strengths are associated with a nation, and that these strengths can be described as being generally characteristic of that nation or tribe or people group.”9

I wonder if, in the last phrase of the above quote, Dr. Smith is using people group synonymously with race, but it is unclear because others in our society will use the phrase people group to mean culture or some geopolitical entity. But still others, especially in anthropology and sociology, will use the phrase synonymously with the idea of a social group —a social group being defined as a collection of individuals who share a common identity based on language, culture, or social practices. If you are confused—that is precisely my point. People group can mean whatever you want it to mean or whatever it is perceived to mean. It is general and less specific and is often used as a euphemism.

In my reading of Reformed theologians, people group is entirely a modern phrase. For example, I recently finished reading W.G.T. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology. He uses the term race to refer to the different ancestries of men. He never uses people group. He was no advocate of slavery and had no sympathy with the Confederacy. He also was not Darwinian but critiqued Darwin heavily. Here are two examples:

“The objections to the biblical account of the origin of man drawn from varieties of color and of race are not serious.”10

“The species man, originated by a distinct fiat on the sixth day, has developed under the law of propagation and by the influence of environment into the several varieties or races of men.”11

Shedd speaks about the origin and varieties of man and uses the term race to denote that variety. My reader will notice that he affirms the unity of mankind in the first pair—Adam and Eve.12 He does not use the term people group. It does not show up in his entire work which was originally published in 1894.

Particularly distressing is a sermon entitled, “The Call to All Nations” preached by Rev. Jonathan Mattull.13 To understand the broader context of the below quote, my reader needs to understand that Rev. Mattull, although not mentioning Michael Spangler by name, was clearly responding to what Spangler had recently posted online regarding Race Realism. My point in bringing Rev. Mattull’s sermon up is not to correct his doctrine. I believe that there is a call to all nations to hear the gospel and be saved (as Michael Spangler does). Rather, the point is to show that this preacher goes out of his way to describe the variations of mankind by using many different terms, but without using the term race.

“In this very room, there are different subgroups. There are different backgrounds. Different belongings. Different financial strata are represented here. Different heritages. Different incomes and so on. Different interests. Different sorts of tribes and backgrounds in these ways.”

Why not use the term race? What does “different belongings” even mean? When this preacher uses the term race in the sermon, he seems to be denying it as a good term:

“Now, we emphasize this because when the alternate view is embraced and when it is that different nations and so-called races are said to be superior or inferior, it necessarily postures us to be loose with the emphasis of the Scriptures.”

Rev. Mattull seems to only believe in “so-called” races. This quote seems to indicate the denial of the term as a proper form of speaking about mankind. I find that distressing. Indeed, it must be an awkward moment in his congregation when they sing the following words out of the 1650 Scottish metrical psalter:

“O ye that are of Abr’ham’s race, his servant well approv’n; and ye that Jacob’s children are, whom he chose for his own.” (Psalm 105:6)

In this verse, race is being used undoubtedly for blood ancestry. It is synonymous with “Jacob’s children.” This is often the sense in the total 13 times that the term is used in this psalter.14 Something for Rev. Mattull, and others like him, to ponder.

Furthermore, while I listened to this sermon, I was bothered that Rev. Mattull abandoned such a commonly received term. I am not against “modern” terms per se—if we have a reason to coin one. But mankind has been around for a while now, and the church has been discussing these things for just as long. I suggest we not use new terms. It would be like a Presbyterian minister today referring to the Sacraments by a new term. Even if his doctrine of the Sacraments was left unchanged, it would raise eyebrows and cause unnecessary confusion.

Furthermore, to my knowledge, the term people group arose during the era of the civil rights movement. Considering the Marxist tendency of those days and the liberalism of Martin Luther King, the church should not adopt their term. At the same time, if someone wishes to use a different word than race to avoid associating with Darwinism, I would disagree with him but would not necessarily take offence if he was not being divisive about it or strongly implying that it was wrong to use it.

4. There is confusion over “culture.”

So many people who discuss the issues of race, will refer to culture instead of race. I commonly experience this when talking about race issues with friends and other ministers. For example, Christians today have the habit of referring to “cross cultural marriage” and not “inter-racial marriage” when the marriage in view is clearly between two people who are both from different cultures and different races. Furthermore, in my experience, people will often use the word culture without any definition. Although, we are not required to define every term we use, in my experience, the frequency of the term culture calls for a clear and agreed definition. The assumption that all are agreed on this term is causing confusion.

I provide a basic definition of culture as a set of behavioral norms which are accepted by a particular society. The word culture could refer to various things in context: sports culture, work culture, church culture, Black culture, Mexican culture, etc. Race and culture are related but different ideas. Race is not a result of culture, but culture is primarily a result of one’s race. I say that culture is “primarily” but not “only” caused by race. Many things do impact one’s culture (religion, language, traditions, geography, etc). However, race seems to be the biggest factor for one’s culture. Some think that religion is the biggest factor. Regardless of how much race shapes one’s culture, the two terms to not carry the same meaning and should not be used as synonyms. However, Christian leaders are beginning to use the terms either as synonyms, or in a way that blurs the issue of biology.

Consider one example from Dr. Nathan Eshelman’s sermon “What is Man?: Unity of Race” on Acts 17:26-28:

“And he [Paul] goes on and talks about how there are times and boundaries of dwellings and those categories of persons, we would put into categories of culture and nation and language and these sorts of categories...and from the table of the nations, you can see all of these great divisions of the great cultures of the ancient world, but when we back that up we understand that there is still one human race. Not divided races, one race. Divided customs and cultures.”15

Perhaps Dr. Eshelman is distinguishing what he means well enough, but it is still confusing. I focus on the very last phrase in the quote. No doubt there are different customs and cultures throughout the world, but when it comes to describe the one human race, he says, in effect, that all we have is “divided customs and cultures.” I agree that we have divided customs and cultures, but we also have separate nations, tribes and even races that have biological, not just behavioral differences. In the last phrase, this preacher uses terms that describe behavior to refer to a biological and blood reality. It suggests that the only differences among mankind are cultural differences, not biological differences. He may not deny the second usage of the term race, but it is confusing—and that is my point.

The following scenario will help illustrate the differences between culture and race. A German family adopts a black child from the interior of Africa. The Black child grows up in Germany all his life being raised by Germans. He speaks German, has developed a taste for German food and understands German customs and culture. In many ways, he has adopted a German culture, but he is still from the Black race. He has adopted the German culture, but he still belongs to the Black race and carries with him the biological characteristics of that race—despite his German culture.

Consider another example. An Oreo (obviously deriving etymology from the popular black and white cookie) is a Black man (or woman) who has adopted certain aspects that are characteristic of White people. If you have lived in the south and are accustomed to being around Black folks—you know what I am talking about. I am not rebuking the Oreo for being an Oreo, nor do I think he is less authentic for rejecting common aspects of the current Black culture in America, instead I am illustration the difference between culture and race.

On the phone, the Oreo, sounds more like a White man. He does not use a vocabulary common among Black people, instead, he uses vocabulary common to White people—even his accent. Also, a male Oreo tends to be more masculine and does not cave as easily to the matriarchy that is so prevalent among Blacks. He is a good father and is responsible at work. He marries one woman and is a faithful husband all his life. He has developed a liking and habit for reading. Whites do not have a monopoly on these traits, but it is an accurate commentary on reality where I am from. This “Oreo” has adopted aspects of culture that are characteristic of White people, but he still has characteristics of the Black race. This example about an Oreo, helps distinguish between the meaning of culture and race. It is a distinction that we need to stop conflating. They are related terms, but different. Stop the confusion.

5. There is confusion over the connection between the term “race” and Darwinism.

One of the reasons people have stopped using the term race is out of a genuine desire not to countenance evolutionary thinking. I am not a Darwinist nor an evolutionist, but I am not bothered by the fact that Darwin, who first published in 1839 and wrote his famous Origin of Species in 1859, used the term race to communicate his errors. Just because Darwin drank water doesn’t mean we should stop drinking water.

Many Christians today believe that Darwin made this use of the term popular, but they are wrong. He no doubt used the word, but he does not have a monopoly on it, nor does it mean that his every use of the term was wrong. Yes, mankind is of one blood, whereas Darwin denied it. But that does not mean the church today must jettison the term from its vocabulary. Consider the following assertions about the connection between the term race and Charles Darwin by three different ministers.

Dr. Nathan Eshelman said: “So these racial divisions that we’ve seen over the last two centuries are a result of Darwin’s theories...”16

Rev. Drew Poplin said: “And so, the term race is narrowly defined and it holds to what is called the permanence of race after their ... narrow definition. And in other words, they’re following the same claim of the evolutionists. They are in line with Margaret Sanger, and Eugenics, and Planned Parenthood.”17

Rev. Edgar Ibarra said: “It should be noted that the way the word ‘race’ is used today stems from an evolutionary model of humanity.”18

What is clear from these three ministers is the belief that using the term race in its second usage countenances Darwinian thinking. I recognize that Rev. Poplin’s quote limits the use of the term to how Kinists (whatever that means) use the term, but my point is still well established. But are their claims true about the origins of the term race? I assert that it is not true. My proof will be found in the second part of my article.

Moreover, it is important to note that the church approved Psalter that these three ministers use includes the second usage of the term race. In selection 44C (Psalm 44:24), one will find the following phrase, “O why are You hiding the light of Your face, forgetting the burden and grief of our race?” The context makes it clear that the psalmist refers to Israel—the ethnic people of God in the Old Testament.

Part 2 – The historic use of ‘race’ among respected Christian authors

Consider the following quotes from well-respected men in church history. These men either wrote before Darwin or did not adopt his views on the origin of man. These men demonstrate that they used the term race not only to describe the one human race, but the variations of mankind.

1. The American and Presbyterian minister, A.A. Hodge (1832–1886), wrote in 1860:

“Ethnology - the science of the divisions of the human family into races and nations, and of their dispersion over the world - which traces their origin and affiliations and their varieties of physical, intellectual, moral, and religious character, and the sources and modifying conditions of these variations.”19

2. The American and Presbyterian Minister, Charles Hodge (1797–1878), wrote his commentary on Romans in 1835. On Romans 9:3, he uses the idea of race to describe the different families of mankind:

“The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.”20

3. In a book authored in 1953, by the Secretary of Negro Work, Board of Church Extension, of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, we find these words:

“This is a day of agitation, of suspicion, and too often of bitterness between the races. It is a time when the race issue is being made a political football in many quarters, and when many impractical and unwise solutions to our problems are being offered by leaders of both races. These problems are complex and difficult. The way before us is not an easy one, and there are many points at which we are not agreed among ourselves. There is one point, however, on which we can agree. The Negro needs Jesus Christ. Evangelism and Christian Education are his hope, just as they are the hope of the White. Only if we have Christian leadership in both races, shall we find the way to a better day.”21

4. Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661), the beloved Scottish Presbyterian, in answering the question, “Whence is it that this man rather than that man is crowned as king?” uses the term race in its tighter usage. In other words, race has been used for a long time as referring not only to White and Blacks, but also on a smaller scale to refer to someone’s more immediate lineage.

“And whence is it – from God immediately and only – that this man rather than that man and this race or family rather than that race and family is chosen for the crown?”22

5. The American and Presbyterian minister, J.G. Vos (1903–1983), who was an abolitionist in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) twice described the Black man as “the Negro race.” He was not quoting his opponents but was using this term as part of the common nomenclature of his day:

“The notion often advocated in the slavery controversy in the previous century in America that Genesis 9:25 involves a curse upon the Negro race, or even affords a divine warrant for keeping the Negro race in a condition of servitude, is wholly untenable.”23

It is important for those in the RPCNA to recognize that their very own beloved minister used this term and did not use people group. Furthermore, would the sons of the Covenanters assert that their beloved Vos was brainwashed by Darwinism? I doubt it. Read his commentary on Genesis.24

6. J.R. Wilson (1780–1853), another beloved abolitionist minister of the RPCNA said in 1837:

“Against immediate emancipation it is often plead that it would lead to an amalgamation of the Black and White races. Nothing is more false or unphilosophical. By setting the colored people free, and giving them access to the lights of literary and religious instruction, marriage would soon be regarded and practiced among them as a sacred institution. Among the free colored people of the northern states intermarriages between the Whites and Blacks scarcely ever occur. In the slaveholding states, the process of amalgamating the two races advances with gigantic strides in all the loathsomeness of the most abominable illegitimacy.”25

Dabney refutes Wilson’s claim about the prevalence of mulattos in the South.26 But regardless, I will point out that Rev. Wilson had no problem with the term race and used it before Darwin. He used it because it was a common way of speaking about this reality. It is also interesting to note that Wilson seems to be against the amalgamation of the Black and White races.

7. B.B. Warfield (1851–1921), the beloved American Presbyterian and theologian, who was no advocate for American slavery, said:

“… the relations between the White and Black races are now in progress of peaceful and friendly adjustment… it may be that advance has been made toward an adjustment of relations between the two races…”27

8. J.W. Alexander (1804–1859), another beloved American Presbyterian minister, spoke on Acts 16:3 regarding Paul’s use of Timothy (a man of mixed race). Here Alexander uses the term race to describe the difference between Greeks and Jews.

“As one reason for selecting Timothy was no doubt his connection with both races, fitting him to be an instrument of good to both, Paul acted on the principle avowed in 1 Cor 9:22...”28

9. William Perkins (1558–1602), the famous English puritan, used race in his discussion on the lawful degrees of consanguinity in marriage in his book Christian Oeconomie. He said:

“The right line ascending is the race of all the ancestors, and it has sundry degrees.”29

In conclusion, stop the confusion and historical revision. We would be wise to take counsel from Dr. Frank Smith:

“God has both made man from one set of parents, and also created variation which is expressed not only individually but also in terms of groups. Therefore, on this matter, let there be humility and mutual forbearance on what term(s) to use. As long as the word “race” is carefully defined, so as not to buy into an evolutionary paradigm, there should not be any problem.”30

In my next section, I will give my defense of the use of race, not from Darwin, science nor nature, but from the Bible. It is important that we not blindly follow these older men cited above. It is possible that they were wrong. Is there a biblical basis for understanding the differences of mankind under the term race and use this term to refer to biological differences based upon a line of a common ancestry? I argue in the affirmative.

Part 3 - A biblical defense of the second meaning of ‘race.’

Steve Sailer gives a helpful definition of race: “A racial group is an extended family that is inbred to some degree.”31 His definition is helpful because he agrees with the basic point of my earlier definition, namely that a race is a group of people who have a common blood ancestry. Therefore, race is a matter of blood. It is a biological reality, not just a cultural reality. This is demonstrated to be true by the testimony of Scripture.

Genos - γένος

Some English Bible versions, to include the King James, do not use the word race. However, the English Standard Version does in a few places. Romans 9:5, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” The Greek word translated race in the previous sentence is genos (γένος). It appears 21 times in the New Testament. It can denote different ideas, but according to one lexicon, the first meaning is “descendants of a common ancestor.”32 It does not take a Greek scholar to recognize that the Bible is infallibly verifying for us that certain people belong to a long line of ancestors from a common stock. Again, the ESV text reads, “…and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ…” Christ came, through Mary, from the race of Israel. This use of genos is also found in Acts 4:6, 36, 7:13 and Mark 7:26 (not to mention other examples in the Septuagint). It is important to note that, although some translations like the KJV do not contain the word race, the idea is biblical.

But we do not want to be a “pettifogger of words, “ as Turretin warned when he argued against the heretical Arians.33 The idea of race, as a biological reality, is not found just in a mere usage of a word. My definition of race is also proved from Scripture in other ways.

Noah’s Prophecy

Consider Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25-27: “And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

A moments reflection on this passage will render the verdict clear. Did Japheth, the actual son of Noah, live literally in Shem’s tents or was Noah saying that his descendants (as opposed to Ham’s) would dwell in Shem’s tents? The answer is obvious. Therefore, race understood as blood ancestry, must be a biblical concept. Furthermore, did Canaan, the actual son Ham, become a “servant of servants” to his own brothers and uncles or was he referring to those still in his loins? Is not Noah giving a blessing and a curse to the races of these men? And were not the races or descendants of these men clearly delineated in the table of nations in the next chapter?

Perhaps they inter-mixed some at first, but eventually their descendants branched off and developed their own unique family traits and Noah’s prophecy would be fulfilled in them over time according to their ancestry and lineage. Thus, race is proven because it must exist in order for these prophecies to be fulfilled. In other words, there must be a group of people that come from different lines and who eventually are treated differently (in God’s providence) in order for this prophecy to have any meaning or significance.

Noah’s prophecy, and the subsequent history in Genesis, is what Paul refers to when he says in Acts 17:26, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation...” All three sons came from one blood—Noah and his wife. And yet, this one human race, also became three separate races of people who would then inhabit the world and have different histories. The airplane was not invented yet. These descendants married those near to them and became inbred to some degree—just as it is common today despite the presence of modern transportation. After the tower of Babel, this pattern continued. So, we can see here that race, a matter of blood ancestry, is a biblical reality.

Furthermore, we can speak of the one human race and also of other races without being Darwinian. Sticking closely to the Scriptures, we can rightly say that there are three races of mankind: Shemites, Japhethites and Hamites. If someone wants to make further distinctions based on observation and history, that is plausible, but not my point here. Scripture speaks of three races and all three are human and made in the image of God. And in God’s providence, these three men would spread throughout all the world, “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread (Gen 9:18-19).”

Not only are the nations in Genesis 10 divided up by these three men, which suggests that they were “inbred” to a large degree, but the text continues to emphasize that they populated the world, “after their families” (v.5, 18, 20,31,32). This indicates that “inter-racial” marriage (as we know it now) was not common. These descendants closely resembled the traits of the three sons of Noah and developed into three distinct races of men.

From the History of the Jews

Try telling a Pharisee, in Christ’s day, that his race was not a biological reality.34 If there was anything that Pharisees believed, they were of Abraham’s blood. “...We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man...” (John 8:33). By the way, here is another word that can describe the idea of race—namely seed (sperma σπέρμα). It can take different connotations, but here the idea is lineage or natural ancestry. Paul asserted the idea of race firmly. He said of himself that he was, “... Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock (genos) of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews...” (Phil 3:5). One can also reference 2 Cor 11:22 and Rom 11:1.

Furthermore, the gospels give two accounts of Jesus’ genealogy —Matthew 1 and Luke 3. According to my count in Luke’s passage, 74 men are mentioned between Jesus and Adam. Of course, no person denies that He has a blood ancestry going all the way back to Adam. The point is that Jesus was prophesied to have come, not only from Shem, not only from Abraham, not only from Judah, but also from David. And this lineage, or race, must be kept for the Messiah to come. If it was not for the rampant confusion on this issue, I would be embarrassed to point to Jesus’ genealogy. Who does not know these things? Nor am I asserting that the men I cited above in part one deny the humanity of Christ. Rather, my point is that race is an idea clearly described in the Bible. Furthermore, keep in mind that the Jews are not the only nation that has a common stock.

Objections

Some may object by saying that inter-racial marriage still occurred, slaves were still taken in war, foreign women captives were still taken as wives, and people still are mixed and thus the racial lines are less defined. I admit that, even in Scripture, you have several accounts of these types of things like inter-racial marriage (Zipporah, Ruth, Rahab, etc). But this did not change the overall distinctions of any given race, or in the case of Christ, His Jewish line.

I recently met a Christian man who had an ancestor who was from the First Nations in Canada. Either his grandfather or great-grandfather was a full-blooded First Nations Indian from Canada. Yet, every other person in his lineage was full-blooded Dutch (as I understand it). I wouldn’t have noticed it, unless his relatives joked with him about it in a friendly manner. He had normal White features and blue eyes, but he was a bit darker than the others in his family. The interesting thing is that he married a Dutch woman, and his son is as Dutch as it gets—fair skinned, blue eyes and light hair. He may have been mixed, but over time, those genes were replaced by the overwhelming Dutch blood of everyone else in his ancestry.

Consider also that, Ruth’s blood and Rahab’s blood, although it is now flowing through the Savior’s veins, is a drop in a large pool of blood. I do not mean to be crass. It needs to be made plain to people who are otherwise confused. The dominant Dutch genes are still in my friends blood and the dominant Jewish genes are still in the Savior’s, and the trait of their ethnicity and race come through. The lines are clearer than some people like to say. And I will add that, my personal antidote above about the Dutchman, is an experience that the average person knows better than the many “educated elite.” It is just common sense. The cross-breeding that has taken place does not change the overwhelming number of incidents when cross-breeding does not take place.

Conclusion

Race refers to a blood and behavioral reality. Culture refers to a behavioral reality. These are different but related matters. People group is a new term that is ambiguous and that is not best to be used as a replacement for the term race. I lay aside any dependence on Darwin, and I appeal to accepted historical usage by respected men and to Scriptural principles. Although Scripture is not a book on Ethnology or race, it tells us something about it and that is all that is needed for my purpose.

Now, if race is a matter of blood ancestry, then this must be quantified. One may ask, “How are the races distinguished among themselves? Is it just a matter of skin color and levels of melanin?” In the forthcoming articles, I will attempt to answer these types of questions and will shift from preliminary considerations on race, to the doctrine of race itself.

However, before the doctrine of race can be wisely taken up, there is one more preliminary consideration that must be addressed. “Race and Grace”—what is the relationship between the gospel and the racial differences within mankind?