Christian History and its Consistent Stance on Hierarchy and Social Inequality as being Biblical

Over here,

Quotes on Social Inequality from the Protestant Tradition

There is a list of quotes that demonstrate that Christianity had never taught the Cultural Marxist doctrine of social equality. I am going to take a quote or two or three every day from this site and post the quote here. The idea of egalitarianism needs to be beaten, bruised and bloodied until it dies a violent death. If the idea of social equality (modern egalitarianism) is not killed it will kill the Church and us as a people.

Elsewhere, I have posted a slew of quotes that demonstrate that Christians throughout history have believed in distinctions between peoples and nations.

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

Also, elsewhere I have posted several times where I have provided quotes that reveal that it is the Marxists and Cultural Marxists who have always desired social equality and social order egalitarianism.

These quotes I am providing in the next few days would provide a more general category under which the quotes I have provided earlier would exist as a subpoint under the general category.

Augustine (354 – 430)

Peace between man and man is well-ordered concord. Domestic peace is the well-ordered concord between those of the family who rule and those who obey. Civil peace is a similar concord among the citizens. The peace of the celestial city is the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. The peace of all things is the tranquility of order. Order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place.  (City of God xix.13)

Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274):

Under the question “Whether in the state of innocence man would have been master over man?,” he writes (Summa Theologica 1.96.4):

But a man is the master of a free subject, by directing him either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good. Such a kind of mastership would have existed in the state of innocence between man and man, for two reasons.

First, because man is naturally a social being, and so in the state of innocence he would have led a social life. Now a social life cannot exist among a number of people unless under the presidency of one to look after the common good; for many, as such, seek many things, whereas one attends only to one. Wherefore the Philosopher says, in the beginning of the Politics, that wherever many things are directed to one, we shall always find one at the head directing them.

Secondly, if one man surpassed another in knowledge and virtue, this would not have been fitting unless these gifts conduced to the benefit of others, according to 1 Peter 4:10, “As every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another.” Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 14): “Just men command not by the love of domineering, but by the service of counsel”: and (De Civ. Dei xix, 15): “The natural order of things requires this; and thus did God make man.”

For the question, “Whether men were equal in the state of innocence?” he writes:

Equality is the cause of equality in mutual love. Yet between those who are unequal there can be a greater love than between equals; although there be not an equal response: for a father naturally loves his son more than a brother loves his brother; although the son does not love his father as much as he is loved by him.

The cause of inequality could be on the part of God; not indeed that He would punish some and reward others, but that He would exalt some above others; so that the beauty of order would the more shine forth among men. Inequality might also arise on the part of nature as above described, without any defect of nature.

A properly ordered hierarchical social order has greater beauty than a collection of equals. This is consistent with Aquinas’s view that “divine goodness” is communicated “more perfectly” by “diverse things” (Summa Contra Gentiles , III, 97)

God, through His providence, orders all things to divine goodness as to an end; not however in such a manner that His goodness increases through those things which come to be, but so that a likeness of His goodness is imprinted in things insofar as it is possible, for indeed it is necessary that every created substance fall short of divine goodness, so that in order for divine goodness to be communicated to things more perfectly, it was necessary for there to be diversity in things, so that what is not able to be perfectly represented by some one [thing] is represented in a more perfect manner through diverse things in diverse ways.

“Christian Academia” and it’s Inability to Think Christianly

“The deterioration of the historic roots of Christian orthodoxy upon the campuses of Christian learning is straightforward. Christian academicians isolate individual concepts and methods of choice from non-Christian thinkers and adopt them into their own ‘Christian’ worldview. In contrast, the directive that needs to be followed is that every concept and method presented by a non-Christian thinker must be subjected to a holistic critical analysis within the structure of the thinker’s own system.”

William Dennison 
In Defense of the Eschaton; Essays in Reformed Apologetics — pg. 78

Dennison’s point here is that before conceptual strands of thought as from non-Christians and non-Christian Weltanschauungs can be adopted by Christians and made a part of a Christian world and life view what first has to be done is that non-Christian conceptual strand of thought must be engaged, via a transcendental analysis, in order to see how that strand of conceptual thought is functioning in that non-Christian Weltanschauung. It may be the case that while the conceptual strand in and of itself is acceptable, it is functioning in a way that is not acceptable for a Christian as it exists in a Christian worldview.

In brief before adopting a conceptual strand from an alien worldview that conceptual strand must go through a surgical debridement process wherein the necrotic material from the original dysfunctional worldview wound is removed from the conceptual strand being adopted by the apologist who is doing the surgery. The conceptual strand must be cleansed of its former association before it can be grafted on to the healthy tissue of Biblical Christianity.

Dennison uses Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul as an example. All Christians believe in the immortality of the soul but the Christian can not take Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul en toto and just own it as a Christain doctrine. Only after putting  Plato’s pagan doctrine of the immortality of the soul through surgical debridement can that doctrine be accepted as being fit for a Christian worldview.

Dennison is insisting (rightly so) that Christian academia is NOT doing this and is instead too often borrowing from the Egyptian’s thought world without ridding the conceptual strand of its Egyptian skubala. What Christian academia too often is doing is that it takes elements from Romanticism or Darwinism or Existentialism, or Post-modernism, or Empiricism, or Barthianism, or Rationalism, or Freudianism or Skinnerism or any number of other anti-Christ worldviews and without putting the conceptual strands through a Biblical Transcendental analysis debridement process just affix these pagan conceptual strands to a Biblical Christian World and life view with the result that their “Christian” World and life view is not at all Christian. At least not consistently so.

Chain of Being Thinking and Implications

“A second essential point with respect to ancient philosophy: for ancient philosophy, being is one and continuous. Now, what does this mean? As Christians, as believers in the scriptures, we declare that God is uncreated being. He alone is God. Men are not Gods, men are not divine, we don’t have a spark of divinity in us, we are creatures. So that there are two kinds of being in the universe. The uncreated being, God, and the whole word of created being, man and all the creatures, the entire universe. This means, therefore, there is a vast gap between God and the universe, and the universe, nor any part of it, can ever be termed divine. But in ancient philosophy, there was only one continuous world of beings, so that the Gods, the men, all shared in this divinity.

Now some people were more godlike than others, the heroes were ones who were at least half-Gods. The rulers or emperors very often became completely God. Everyone had a little bit of God in them and it was just a case of developing that in them. So salvation meant becoming more and more a God, whereas for us salvation is accepting the redemptive work of God by faith.

Now, the background of this idea of one continuous being was that being arose out of chaos, and here you have the whole religion of revolution and that it is working its way up. And since it is evolving, and the idea of evolution is the hallmark of paganism, there was no idea of creation in paganism, whatever they may try to tell you. The way for this evolution to proceed is through chaos. It has to have chaos occasionally in order to step upward. And so this takes us to the religion of evolution.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Lecture — The Early Thinkers from Plato to Augustine Q&A-Delivered 1969

These three paragraphs explain the modern West for those with ears to hear. Some observations.

1.) If all being is continuous then all being participates in and is reflective of God.  Any distinctions that exist, exist only because some realities have more being in them than other realities. The more the being the higher one is on the scale of hierarchy. This kind of social order was reflected in the Egyptian system of Mahat. Mahat had reference to the Universal mind. Pharaoh was understood to have the greatest participation of the Universal mind. From Pharaoh on down, everyone possessed less of the Universal mind.  If one possessed less of the universal mind one was the slave of the one who possessed more of the universal mind. Mahat gave a slave order where everyone was the slave of the one above them who had more being.

2.) The West has put a twist on this continuous being thinking by adding egalitarianism to continuous being. If all being is continuous (Chain of being) and if that thinking is going to be combined with egalitarianism then no being is superior or inferior to any other being and as no being is superior or inferior to any other being then no distinctions that mark superiority or inferiority can be allowed to exist. Hence egalitarianism, as combined with the chain of being thinking (called Oneism by Dr. Peter Jones), results in the certitude that no objection can be raised against Transgenderism, sodomy, New World Order Babelism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, multi-faithism or Open borders because all share in divinity and all are equal. Indeed in this system of continuous thinking as combined with egalitarianism any distinction made in terms of “superior” (better) vs. “inferior” (worse) is the greatest crime imaginable. (With the exception that egalitarianism is superior to inferior notions of Biblical hierarchy.)

3.) Wherever you find the doctrine of the chain of being (continuous being) there you find the religion of chaos.  Chain of Being thinking does not allow a creator God who has distinct unshared being and who is responsible for bringing order out of Chaos so Being and order must arise out of chaos. Chaos gives birth to order and being.  As such, those social orders who embrace continuous being (and Evolutionary thinking is the very nard of chain of being thinking), also embrace the religion of revolution. This religion insists that in order for a utopian order to come to pass that can only happen by returning to chaos that order may be birthed. You find this kind of thinking exemplified in celebrations of Mardi Gras, ancient rites of bacchanalia, and of course the post-Endarkenment blood-drenched Revolutions (1789 — French / 1848 — Europe / 1861 — America / 1914 — Europe / 1918 — Bolshevik / 1948 — China etc.).  This thinking teaches that destruction has the capacity to bring Utopia.  Order out of Chaos reflects a dialectical thinking of one step back in order to gain two steps forward.

4.) Of course, “chain of being” thinking disallows the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible has being that is unique and distinct from the creature. (In Christian theology this is called the Creator-creature distinction.) In “chain of being” thinking this Creator God must be eliminated.  Of course, when the God of the Bible is eliminated God pops up elsewhere. For “chain of being” thinking the god which has distinct being from all else (even though lip service is given that no distinct being exists) is the State. The State becomes that reality which has the most being and so must be obeyed. The new motto for “chain of being” thinking is “in the state we live and move and have our being.”

5.) Since all godhead must have unity of being the State as the god of the Chain of being must work in order to ensure uniformity in the social order. The motto becomes, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” If there is continuity of being and if the State is the Archimedean point of all being then all individuality in the State must be sunk in the god-State. This also becomes a factor in pushing all things towards egalitarianism.  The State becomes Queen Bee and all in the hive are drones serving the Queen bee.

Individuality is lost. Distinction is lost. Liberty is lost.

Who We Once Were

One need not believe that one’s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others…in order to wish one’s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before. And, conversely, the wish not to see one’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or ‘racism’… the wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification…any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them needs to be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.

Ernest van den Haag 
National Review — 1965

There was a time when this view was not particularly controversial. Indeed so normal was this view that when proposals arrived to change the immigration laws in 1965 politicians scurried to the microphones to promise that the country would not be overrun by groups Americans regarded as alien.

“Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do.  … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage.”(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)

Sen. Edward Kennedy
Democrat Massachusetts

“… the notion was created that somehow or another, 190 million [the population of the U.S. in 1965] is going to be swallowed up. None of us would want that, this bill does not seek to do it and the bill could not do it.”(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.29)

Senator Philip Hart
Democrat — Michigan

These two quotes are just two fo many quotes from politicians of the time insisting, in order to calm the nerves of jittery Americans, that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality act would not upset the ethnic and racial composition of these united States. The politicians then understood how normal it was for a nation to desire to remain a nation and so they beat a path to the press to insist that this common desire had become an irrational fear in light of the proposed legislation.

53 years later and now we are told from all quarters, including the Church, that this desire to retain a White European identity as a nation is a sin. Of course, this is not surprising. In those 53 years America has gone from being 85% white to being now 63% white. The numbers alone have moved the proposition that desiring to retain White European Christian ethnicity identity is normal to the proposition that desiring to retain White European Christian ethnicity is a sign of grossly aberrant thinking. As the years continue to unwind any thought that is harmonious with the opening quote from van den Hegg will very likely be seen as criminal.

The cry for “Tolerance,” was in 1965 the cry of those who were then seeking to overturn the then present social order in favor of their preferred social order. Tolerance thus became a stalling mechanism that allowed those in the minority time to build their numbers so that they could be where they are now in the ascendancy. Now in the ascendancy, you can be sure there will no “tolerance”  allowed by the multicultists to their nationalist enemies. The demand for tolerance was in 1965 a stalling action to allow time to build up numbers against the van den Hegg type enemies. Tolerance thus was a bridge between the then current minority status to a future where the then current minority makeup can now crush its van de Hegg opposition.

However, as van de Hegg notes in the opening quote there is no necessity for hatred of the other to be present in the desire for ethnic stability. All that is necessary is the desire to honor the generations that have gone before by having children who look and act like their sires and who worship the same God as their forebears.

Of course, that has largely already been lost in the West. The work of mass migration has done its work. A few countries like Hungary and Poland hold out but the West has successfully committed both religiocide and ethnocide. It may take a few decades more to work itself out but barring a remarkable providence the West as a Christian and European civilization in the short term is dead.

Some people will rejoice in that.

I am not one of them.

Is God Still the God of Nations?

In the Patriarchal narratives, God’s focus narrows. Taking on the role of a tribal deity, He concerns Himself with a singular family, by providing security, opening barren wombs, playing matchmaker, and dealing with other familial matters. However, in the book of Exodus, God’s role changes significantly. Coincident with the revelation of the meaning and significance of His personal name as I AM, God takes on the status of a national deity with roles of deliverer, guide, provider, protector, and warrior.

Bruce Waltke 
An OT Theology — pg. 393

1.) We shouldn’t miss the simple fact that Scripture transitions from God being a tribal deity in Genesis to being a national deity in Exodus for the simple fact that the tribe that God is the God of has become a nation by Exodus thanks to God’s grace in providing security, opening barren wombs, playing matchmaker and dealing with familial matters.

2.) God never ceases being a God who is a God of nations. The arrival of Christ did not end God’s status of a national deity. However, in the New Testament God is no longer uniquely the God of the Hebrew Nation. In the New Testament God is seen as the God of many nations as nations. This was foretold in the Old Testament prophecy,

Isaiah 2:2 Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it.

Micah 4:1 And it will come about in the last days That the mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains. It will be raised above the hills, And the peoples will stream to it. 2Many nations will come and say, “Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD And to the house of the God of Jacob, That He may teach us about His ways And that we may walk in His paths.” For from Zion will go forth the law, Even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.…

Isaiah 19:21 And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it. 22 And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them. 23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. 24 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: 25 Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

The import of this is that any attempt to suggest that God was a God of a nation in the Old Testament (Israel) but with the coming of Jesus God no longer deals with people in their nations but instead God deals with people just as individuals is not a Biblical reading of Scripture. God is still a God of nations. God still enters into covenant with nations to be their God. Yes, God builds the Church out of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, but it is a Church that is gathered as tribes, tongues, and nations.

This also ruins any idea that Christianity foresees a time where God rules over a United Nations Babel-like Christian Church. God is decidedly not a one worlder. Dr. Geerhardus Vos teaches this when he wrote on Romans 11:17, 19,

(The) “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 9:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

God still deals with people as being members of nations, peoples, and races. This is a very unsavory truth for the modern Evangelical with their love affair for the erasure of all the creation distinctions God created us with. God has not given up on Nations which is why when the Lord Christ was entrusted with all authority in heaven and earth by the Father the commission He gave His people was to go and teach the nations to observe all things he has commanded. Because of God’s purposes to still deal with nations as nations, the Church can be spoken of as a confederated nation of nations.

God did not inspire John Lenon to write and sing “imagine their’s no nations.”