Category: Ethnic considerations

Maedoc ap Opwain Gwynedd was a Norseman who settled in Wales and then made his way across the North Atlantic and was lost at sea. His story is woven into Welsh and Icelandic chronicles, often told as tragic tale of lost potential. But there’s an alternate ending as well. When European Settlers in North America in the 16th century first began to ask the Cherokee people about their history, one story was of a white skinned people who preceded them. They were large, fierce men with golden grain instead of hair. They called them the Welsh tribe of the Vi-Kings. The Cherokee claimed descent from white forebears who crossed the great water. A legend like this among the Cherokee would likely have gone unnoticed, except that in Wales there are tales of this same Viking prince named Madeoc ap Owain Gwynedd who sailed west and discovered land sometime after the year 1100.

There’s sufficient evidence for some to conclude that Maedoc’s company landed in Mobil Bay and made their way to Tennessee, thus meeting the Cherokee and thus accounting for several mysterious stone Forts in Chattanooga and Manchester. The reconstructed account theorizes that the band continued through the Ohio Valley to Louisville where they intermarried with the Mandan-Sioux and moved up the Missouri River to the Dakotas.

If the Cherokee legends and Welsh and Viking tales were the only support for this fantastic story, and even if we had a few stone forts that we couldn’t explain, the story probably wouldn’t have had enough strength to survive the centuries. However, in his Principle Navigations of 1589, Richard Hakluyt offered the story of Maedoc in support of English territorial claims to the New World….

Additional support for the legend is found in the writings of American artist George Caitlin. While drawing pictures of the Mandan Sioux in N. Missouri in the 19th century, Caitlin discovered Indians w/ uncommonly pale complexions and blue eyes. He believed that they may indeed be the descendants of the legendary Viking / Welsh colony of Maedoc and argued for the case in his famous book North American Indians written in 1841.

Dr. George Grant
Notes From His Lectures on Christendom
Lecture 19

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0311/Eric_Holder_Black_Panther_case_focus_demeans_my_people.html

“The Attorney General seemed to take personal offense at a comment (Congressman) Culberson read in which former Democratic activist Bartle Bull called the (Black Panther voter intimidation) incident (in Philadelphia) the most serious act of voter intimidation he had witnessed in his career.

“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate….to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black”

Re-read HOlder’s “my people” statement above. Isn’t it clear from that statement alone that Holder and the Justice Department have a mentality where the people they are most concerned with representing is not with Americans as a whole but with Blacks as a subset. It is almost as if a occupying force that distinguishes between the occupiers as a people and the occupied indigenous people and is concerned for the interests of the occupiers.

Would a Attorney General that was representing all Americans make a distinctions between his people and other Americans? In short Holder’s people are clearly not all Americans but rather Blacks. He is the Attorney General for Blacks and not for Americans.

Also, realize that as Attorney General Holder’s job is to enforce the law. It is not his job to enforce the law if he thinks some violation of the law doesn’t measure up to his interpretation of previous historical grievances. Either the law was broken or it wasn’t. If the law was broken, but not broken as egregiously as it may have been in the past, it does not matter. If the law was broken then the law must be enforced.

What this man is doing is basically saying … “Well, because my people had the law broken more egregiously in the 60’s and suffered far worse indignity than those white folks suffered in Philadelphia, therefore I don’t have to enforce the law now even though it was clearly violated.” Payback is a bitch don’t you know?

For Pete’s sake, the Attorney General even admits the action of the Philadelphia Black Panthers was “inappropriate.” Is that what we now call crimes by blacks against whites that we used to call “illegal?”

This is insane.

Pastor McDonald asks,

“Question — Why did God disperse the nations in the first place (Gen 11)?”

Answer

My understanding to date James is that God disperses the nations in order to finally frustrate man’s corporate effort to ascend to the most high so as to un-god god and en-god man. If Genesis 3 and the casting from the garden was the consequence to the action of sovereign individual(s) to cast off God, Genesis 11 and the dispersion of the nations was the consequence to the action of man, corporately considered, to cast off God.

My understanding is that Genesis 11 is a repeat of the theme of Genesis 3. I.) God commands (Gen. 3 — Do not eat, Gen. 11 — Fill the earth). II.) Man disobeys (Gen. 3 — Adam and Eve eat, Gen. 11 — Man say’s “let us make a name for ourselves lest we be scattered over the earth.”) III.) God Investigates (Gen. 3:9, 11:7) IV.) God brings judgment (Gen. 3:14f, 11:7f) by dispersion.

Pastor McDonald asks,

Does the Gospel provide any picture of reconciliation or even unification (i.e., Acts 2, 10, Galatians 2)?

Answer,

The Great Commission of Christ indicates that the picture of reconciliation that we are to expect is a reconciliation that confirms unity in diversity among the nations. It is the NationS that are to be made disciples. It is the NationS that are baptized. It is the NationS that are to be taught to all observe all things (Mt. 28:16f)

When we get to the book of Revelation we see the success of the Great Commission as it is the NationS that stream into the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:26) and it is the NationS which find healing from the leaves of the tree(22:2).

Acts 2 seems to indicate not the undoing of Babel but the sanctification of Babel. If Acts 2 had been the undoing of Babel one would expect that each would have heard the Gospel in a unitary language. Instead they each hear in their own tongue indicating a Unity (A Gospel shaped humanity) in diversity (That NationS each hearing the Gospel in their own tongue).

If Acts 10 speaks at all to this issue it would seem to likewise again speak to the idea of unity in diversity. Peter learns that “in every NATION whoever fears God and works righteousness is accepted by God” (cmp. vs. 35-36).

Galatians 2 teaches that all the NationS are saved by Christ alone through faith alone and that people don’t have to become Jews in order to become Christians. Galatians 2 really has very little bearing on the subject whether the Gospel creates uniformity in social order as the Gospel has worldwide success or whether the successful extension of the Gospel creates Unity in diversity in social order as it overcomes the world.

Pastor McDonald asks,

“Although we do have a rich mosaic of culture in the world, what do we do with the portions that are inherently pagan?”

Van Til informed us that since all reality is God’s reality that all inherently pagan cultures have within them capital stolen from a Biblical Worldview in order to cohere. Van Til loved the illustration that men had to sit on God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face. This is true of pagan cultures. Their cultures deny God but before they deny God they must assume God.

Because this is true I don’t know if there is any pagan culture that is “inherently pagan” if by “inherently pagan” one means there is no possibility that the success of the Gospel among that pagan group would not leave some kind of memory of what the culture was before it was visited with Gospel renewal. We must remember that Grace amends nature … grace does not destroy nature.

Now, naturally, such Cultures that are dripping in paganism will probably have more discontinuity with what they were culturally before Gospel renewal but I would still contend there will be enough continuity with what they previously were to be able to identify them as still retaining their unique culture.

On this one might want to read Don Richardson’s “Eternity in their hearts,” and “Peace Child.”

Pastor McDonald asks,

Is there a common Christian culture that transcends racial or tribal boundaries?

Answer,

If the question is whether or not there is a monolithic Christian culture that all tongues, tribes, and peoples, must embrace so that we have a monochromatic uniformity I think then, the answer is clearly “no.” One of the main themes of the book of Galatians is that Gentiles do not need to become cultural and religiously “Jewish” in order to be Christian. Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council likewise seems to suggest that a monolithic Christian culture is not the result of the success of the Gospel.

However, if the question is whether the various Christian cultures will have a point of integration the answer is clearly “yes.” That point of commonality will be the acceptance of all peoples in resting in Christ alone as well as a commonality in the moral rectitude that all will share as all look to God’s Holy law-word to be guided in their walk and informed as to the laws for their social order.

As such the Kingdom of God is a Nation of NationS. We see that clearly in the book of Revelation. We see that in the Abrahamic Promise given to God where the promise is that “In you all the NationS of the earth shall be blessed.” We see that in Isaiah 2 and 60 where they clearly speak of the nations coming to Mt. Zion. In Psalms 2 it is the Kings of the NationS who are required to Kiss the Son. All the way through Scripture we see God dealing with the NationS.

While I am not a Kinist, (in point of fact I’ve been severely insulted by them in the past for my rejection of their doctrines) I do believe that Kinism has put its finger on a significant problem (i.e. — the death of the West & the death of the faith, culture and people who made the West the West) and that problem must be addressed with precision and nuance. It will do no good to just dismiss Kinist arguments by ad-hominem. I will go on the record as saying I do not believe that all Kinists are racists (whatever that word means) and I do not believe Kinism automatically means heresy in every person who takes to themselves that descriptive title. The issues that Kinism raise are tougher nuts to crack then many people believe.

Here are a few starting points. These are not written in stone but just represent a bit of brain storming on my part.

1.) Salvation is by grace alone and people from every tribe tongue and nation will be represented in the New Jerusalem.

2.) Christianity, as a faith and belief system is the only faith and belief system that can build beautiful civilization.

3.) It is possible for varying ethnic groups / races to be Christian and yet have significantly different civilizations. It is not necessary for all Christian civilizations to look the same.

4.) It is a reasonable postulate that the differences that might exist between different Christian civilizations might be accounted for by the God ordained differences between varying peoples.

5.) Just as family lines have particular traits which include both strengths and weaknesses so people groups likewise will have particular traits that are characteristic of those people groups. (i.e. — Irish temper [speaking from experience] … Scottish pugnaciousness [again speaking from experience], Dutch frugality, Italian passion, German precision, etc.) Those traits will reveal themselves in the varying Christian civilizations that those people build.

6.) It is possible for a individual who belongs to one people group to denounce his or her people group and bond with a people group that is not his or her own. This accounts for why many blacks will be referred to as “Uncle Toms” by their own people.

7.) People groups are not to be understood solely as a genetic grouping. People groups also include belief systems. It is the interplay of nurture, nature, and belief that makes people groups, people groups. This is why the subject is so complex and difficult … you just can’t extract any of those three from the other two without involving oneself in significant error.

8.) Just as most family members prefer their family to all other families, so most people groups instinctively and rightly prefer their people group to all other people groups. Even the Apostle Paul reveals this (Romans 9:2f).

9.) While the tribe that Christians should most identify with is the Christian Tribe there can still be diversity of people groupings within this tribe so that a Mongolian Christian, while identifying primarily with the Christian tribe, would, within that tribe, identify most significantly with his or her Mongolian Christian tribe. Trinitarian Christians should have no problem with this since to deny this would be to deny the trinity in favor of a Unitarian God. Think “The One and The Many” here folks.

10.) A civilization composed of various people groups can only work if those various people groups are christian and are committed to a harmony of interests. When set civilizations seek to incorporate various pagan people groups under the umbrella of one civilization chaos is insured since the sin induced conflict of interests will have each people group seeking to be advantaged at the expense of the other people groups.

11.) This does not mean, however that civilizations which are composed of one people group that is pagan will be harmonious. Where pagan people groups compose one civilization it is my conviction that those pagan people groups, not having some other alien people group to despise, will look for some sub-grouping within their own group to be the red-headed step child that will be taken advantage of.

12.) People groups that are pagan will manifests their pagan-ness in their own unique ways. Ugly civilization that comes from pagan Tibetans will be a different ugly civilization that comes from pagan white Europeans.

13.) The only cure for all pagan people groups is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ covers the world as the water covers the sea it still will not be the case that all cultures and civilizations will be the same or that all the colors will bleed into one.

14.) The death of the West has many factors … the chief of which is unbelief. Further, the primary race and ethnicity that is responsible for the death of the West are the descendants of White Europeans. The white man has torn down his own house by his abandoning of the Christian faith. However, having admitted that doesn’t explain the “how” in which that has happened or the accelerating factors of the last 40 years. In order to understand the “how” and the accelerating factors I believe that we have to look in some of the directions that kinism points us toward.

The position that Christianity should create a singular mono world Christian culture really strikes me as gnostic. It seems to suggest that there is a “Word culture” that doesn’t take to itself the material corporeal expressions of the culture that to which the Word comes. If there is a “Word culture” I would contend that won’t be happened upon until the eschaton arrives. Until them, cultures will vary precisely because God has made peoples to vary. The consequence of this will be a diversity of Christian cultures that are remarkably different, yet having a unity that flows from all being one in Christ.

People who want to build a mono cultural global Christianity seem to fail to appreciate that culture has both a divine and a human component. The divine component in culture, I would submit, is that culture is the outward manifestation of what a people believe about God, god, or the gods. The human component in culture is the result of how that belief system is poured over who and how God has created them to be as a people or race. Can we really believe that a Christian belief system as poured over the Mongolian people will express itself the same in its cultural outworking and manifestation as that same Christian belief system instantiates itself in its cultural outworking as it is poured over occidental people or Xhosa people? Culture has a human and divine component and to suggest that all cultures must look the same, or bleed into one, strikes me as denying the human component that God finds good in search for a kind of unitarian gnostic culture where the distinctness that comes from the human-ness of culture is completely nullified.

Further to insist on one “Word culture” that absorbs all unique ethnic cultural expressions strikes me as the result of a rather Unitarian understanding of God. All the emphasis is on the “One” with no emphasis on “The Many.” If God is genuinely both “One” and “Many” then it clearly suggests that it would be sinful to pursue a Unitarian culture where all the God given ethnic and cultural differences bleed into one.

There is a great deal of talk these days about diversity and the need for the Church in the West to be diverse. However, as I examine much of that talk it strikes me that what is really being said is that there is a need for the Western Church to give up its culturally distinct expression in favor of a cultural Church expression that is non Western. This causes one to ask why non-Western cultural expression of Worship are to be preferred at the price of extinguishing Western cultural expressions of Worship. When all the fog and smoke is removed from the incessant cries for cultural diversity in the Church what often seems to be left, for all to see, is the desire to exterminate Western cultural expression in the Church. If Western man is to stay in the Church then let Western man no longer be Western.

God loves diversity. Scripture clearly teaches that love of diversity will be in the new Jerusalem,

“Revelations 7:9 – 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;”

Note though that the diversity that Scripture speaks of and that God loves is a diversity that is not the result of all colors, cultures, languages, and ethnicities bleeding into one thus yielding a genuine mono-cultural mono-glot new Jerusalem. No, the diversity that Scripture speaks of and that God loves is a diversity that is distinct and polyglot yet in harmony because of the mutual allegiance and union that all peoples share with the great High Priest and King — The Lord Jesus Christ.

One implication of this is that the vision of building a church here on earth that seeks to erase all cultural differences is, at the very least, at variance with what we find in Scripture. One of the main points of the book of Galatians, is after all, that one doesn’t have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. Similarly, it should not be the case that anybody coming into the Church has to completely deny their cultural-ethnic identity in order to become a Christian. One can be a Christian and remain culturally Filipino, or Welsh, or Ndebele, or Syrian, or Sri-Lankan as those cultures have experienced the effects of redemption.

Christianity’s vision of the future outworking of God’s Kingdom parts ways with the pagan view of pagan man’s Utopian Kingdom. In Christianity both the One and the Many are culturally honored, while in pagan man’s Utopian Empire-Kingdom all colors must bleed into one. In Christianity all peoples understandably prefer their own people while still embracing the truth that all Christian cultures together express the Corpus Christi. In pagan man’s Utopian Kingdom one people are always seen as superior over all other peoples with the consequence that the favored people group live off of the groups reckoned inferior. (Currently, in our alleged pursuit of multi-culturalism the people group who are seen as superior are those who have sought to deny their ethnic and cultural rooted-ness in favor of the multi-cultural vision.) In Christianity the Christian faith is insisted upon as the one true faith while in pagan man’s Utopian Empire Kingdom the faith that is embraced is either alleged atheism or a full orbed polytheism where the State serves as the god of the gods. (Both atheism and statist polytheism end up at the same place.)

Currently, there is a great deal of confusion in the Church and culture on this subject. God grant us grace to think clearly about it once again.