I had three majors in Undergrad when I graduated in 1982 from Marion College. One of those three was a Religion-Philosophy degree. This meant taking classes in theology, and philosophy. As I recall my Bible courses counted towards this degree as well. In the Religion-Philosophy pool one had to swim with the Professorial sharks named Dr. R. Duane Thompson, Dr. Wayne Caldwell, and Dr. Malcolm Ellis. The Secretary of the Department was Maxine Haynes. (I only remember Mrs. Haynes because she was assigned every year with giving every graduate of the Religion-Philosophy program two adjectives to describe them for the Religion-Philosophy graduation ceremony. Of course they were supposed to be flattering for the students as they were honored before their family. I remember because one of Maxine’s adjectives for me was “improving.” Talking about being damned with feint praise. All these years later, I have no idea what Maxine’s second adjective for me was. All I remember about that ceremony is that she had complimented me by saying I was “improving.” I guess it could’ve been worse.) Maxine had put me in the fine wines category. Imagine how much I’ve “improved” since then. 😉

Anyway, I’ve gotten ahead of myself with that memory. My memories center most around Dr. R. Duane Thompson. Now keep in mind that Dr. Thompson was teaching Philosophy at an explicitly Christian University and all the time what was coming through in his classes was pure Existentialism. Dr. Thompson had more of the smell of Camus, Sartre and Heidegger about him then he had the smell of Christ. Of course, at this age I was to young to get all of what Dr. Thompson was pushing. A good deal of it was hazy. However, it all became clearer to me years later when I went back and re-read those textbooks that were assigned in my “Existentialism,” and “Aesthetics,” classes. Thompson was big into Phenomenology which is an aspect of Existentialism. I remember one of the courses had an off campus student in it and one day she, quite literally, had an existential experience. Everything that Thompson had been teaching suddenly coalesced for her and she was so excited over the epiphany that could barely stay in her seat. I remember thinking that someday Thompson would be held accountable for how he had led her astray with his Existentialism. “Giddy” hardly does justice to her effervescence that day, and Thompson sat there like a Cheshire cat with a grin from ear to ear.

I didn’t do well in Thompson’s classes. Remember, I’ve already told you that I was, on the whole, not a good student until my last three semesters. If I got by with a “C” in Thompson’s classes I counted myself blessed. A funny fact about Thompson’s classes was that fact there was never more than six or seven students in the class. Dr. Thompson’s classes were very intimate and it was hard to hide and hiding in class was something I had worked hard at practicing. I was a student’s whose zip code was always in the back row practicing the art of last one in and first one out.

Despite Thompson’s heresy of Existentialism there can be no doubt he was an intelligent man. However, it has been my experience that some of the smartest men I’ve ever known have also been some of the most unwise people I’ve ever known. Dr. Thompson was just such a man. He was intelligent in so many respects and yet his Existentialist worldview found him on the other side of wisdom.

Dr. Wayne Caldwell was the chap who taught me my first “theology,” (two Semesters) as well as Bible courses in the Johannine writings as well as the synoptic Gospels (one Semester each). Dr. Caldwell was a kindly man who had a grandfatherly type of approach. I never had a great deal of interaction with him but when I did he was always even-handed. I did well in his theology courses. Of course he was teaching Arminian theology (our Textbook was John Miley’s systematic Theology) but at the time for whatever reason I really took to Theology and showed aptitude. In this course I excelled. I would excel eventually in other courses but this was one of the first courses where I found the material to be comparatively comprehensible. Most of the course was taught in terms of how we were different than the evil Calvinists. Indeed, most of my blue books (test booklets) are an apologetic against Calvinism with Dr. Caldwell’s comments complimenting my test answers for their thoroughness. I graduated being a thorough-going opponent of Calvinism. Dr. Caldwell indoctrinated us well and it took me a decade to get out of that Arminian box.

In terms of humorous memories and Caldwell I remember coming into class late once wearing a pair of jeans that was significantly torn from the knees to the ankles. He was not amused and I wasn’t amused at his lack of amusement. Of course I understand now his way of thinking. He was from a different generation and my attire was a sign of disrespect in his way of thinking. Looking back he was correct. However, in my defense, I just couldn’t bring myself to be part of the polyester pants ministry student’s club. Those chaps were so tight they squeaked when they walked. I was (and remain) more free styling in my lean into life. Although I took a large number of classes with those chaps who would go on to be Wesleyan Ministers I never ever fit into their mode of being and for that we are both thankful. I just couldn’t go through life being “good,” and working to be seen as “respectful.” I had more of John Dillinger in me than John Wesley.

The other memory of Dr. Caldwell was the time he marked me down on a major paper because the typist I paid to type my paper spelled my first name with two “t’s” instead of one. He wrote on the paper, “I’ve never seen you write your name with two “t’s” before but I suppose you know best.” Yet, despite his admission that I knew best he still docked the paper. I didn’t know who to be more peeved at, the stupid typist or a chap who was so anal that he had to mark down a major paper because some stupid typist couldn’t spell. Ah well … it could’ve been worse.

Dr. Caldwell, in our Bible classes would have us do massive notebooks on the books of the Bible we were studying. I still have fat notebooks on John’s writings and the Synoptic Gospels. Of course this was all very preliminary stuff but still much needed as building blocks for future work in Scripture that would be pursued in Seminary and then in the ministry. The ubiquitous pencil that is behind my ears comes from these days of using colored pencils to color code loose leaf study bibles for Caldwell’s class.

Looking back, I am disappointed that in my Religion-Philosophy degree I got Existentialism and Arminianism as Christianity. It was a disservice to Christianity and a disservice to the students. Fortunately, my History and Poly-Science degree rescued the shaping I was getting from my Religion-Philosophy degree work.

Dr. Malcolm Ellis taught Ethics. It was the only course I took from him. The clearest thing I remember about Ethics is showing up to class one day without knowing we were having a major exam. I showed up completely unprepared. I somehow scuffled a “C.” I have always had the ability to shovel the BS when needed and I shoveled enough on that exam to make it look like I knew a little bit what I was talking about. Another interesting aspect of the “Ethics” course was that a major part of the grade was based on a 25 page paper on some aspect of Ethics. As I told you earlier I was taking an Aesthetics class from Thompson which also was requiring a major paper on some aspect of Aesthetics. So, naturally, I did what any fan of Tom Sawyer would’ve done. Instead of laboring over two major papers I wrote one paper titled “Ethics in Aesthetics,” and turned it as my final paper for each class. Ellis gave me an “A.” Thompson failed me because the paper was 24 hours late but still managed to write on the paper that it was a quality paper that would have gotten a good grade had I handed in on time. Small satisfaction that. To this day I see the irony in the same paper acing and failing two different courses. It was likely God’s justice for me trying to be clever and get out of work my handing in one paper for two major required assignments.

However, as revenge is a dish best served cold eventually there was a final assize with Thompson for failing me for being 24 hours late in turning in my paper. A couple years later when on the cusp of graduation in 1982 someone came up with the brilliant idea of bricking Thompson’s office door shut thus barring him from his lair and so from about 0130 – 0430 on one evening several Marion College students entered into McCaan chapel by skulduggery– all of whom had the same warm affection for Dr. Thompson — and there, where Dr. R. Duane’s office was, and with the use of quick dry cement, and recently purchased 200 bricks, Dr. Thompson’s doorway was bricked shut. The quick dry cement was mixed up in a waste basket. Several trowels worked feverishly and upon completion his door was bricked shut. Left behind was a heater unit facing the then new brick wall so as to accelerate the pace of quick dry cement. Rumor later was heard that when the secretaries showed up for work that morning they were quite beside themselves and all in a twitter that where Dr. R. Duane Thompson’s door once was there now existed a brick wall. By all accounts it took some time for maintenance to tear down someone’s version of the Berlin Wall. To this day it remained a mystery as to why Thompson’s door was chosen.

I also received a number of credits for the Religion-Philosophy degree from another Professor who also weighed in greatly on my other degrees so I’ll save him for another entry.

A word should be said about my classmates in the religion-philosophy degree. As I said they belonged to a different world than I. I always felt bad for those guys because these 20 year olds really had the pressure on them. They were being told they had to be entirely sanctified before they would be allowed to take a pulpit and going into the Wesleyan ministry was the direction that most of them were moving. This led inevitably to a good number of these guys claiming to be entirely sanctified (which means one is sin free) all the while they themselves knew that was an entirely bogus claim. All of this led to creating a great degree of self-righteousness and hypocrisy in those students going into the ministry. I didn’t have that problem. I was glad to admit that I had no business getting any where near a pulpit at that age. Save for God’s grace I’m still sure I should not be near a pulpit.

So, happy Anniversary Marion College (Indiana Wesleyan University) and thank you for the Religion-Philosophy degree. You will be glad to know that I kept pursuing philosophy after graduating under-grad. I kept reading the books. I kept examining the errant presuppositions of Western Philosophy from the time of Descartes’ cogito forward. I think I could carry on a pretty decent conversation with Dr. Thompson 40 years later were he still alive (he passed away in 2009). However, I would be begging him to repent by the time we finished. His Existentialism really did him no good and was of no help to his students.

He knows that now.

Addendum — Doing a little probing I just discovered that Dr. R. Duane Thompson did graduate work at Butler University in Philosophy when the famous Calvinist Dr. Gordon Haddon Clark (my favorite Christian Philosopher) was the Chair of the Butler University Philosophy Department. Now, I can’t help but wonder if their paths ever crossed. Now that would’ve been a fascinating conversation.

On 08 April, 1924 Colorado 1st District US Congressman William Vaile said before Congress,

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer with a very low percentage of crime and insanity, that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has a spiritual grasp and an artistic sense which have greatly enriched the world and which have, indeed, a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But … [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.We are determined that they shall not … It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.”-Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922

On 12 April, 1924 US Congressman Scott Leavitt from Montana said on the floor of Congress,

On 12 April, 1924 US Congressman Scott Leavitt from Montana said on the floor of Congress,”The instinct for national and race preserevation is not one to be condemned …. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois (Adolph Sabath), who is leading the attack on this measure, of the gentlemen from New York, Mr Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Emanuel Celler , and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that that are chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than they can be assimilated as to ideas of government as well as blood.”

Of course, as we know, Vaile and Leavitt and their allies prevailed in 1924 in shutting the door to excessive immigration over the objections of the opposition as lodged primarily in the Jewish contingent in Congress. They shut the door with the express goal of maintaining a set racial and ethnic identity that had been that racial and ethnic identity that characterized the predominant expression of Americans up till that time.

From Leavitt’s quote we see the main opposition in 1924 was the Jewish contingency in Congress. Interesting enough if we fast forward to 1965 we see, with the passage of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act which basically overturned the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act that once again it was the Jewish contingency in politics that was largely instrumental in snuffing out Johnson-Reed. In 1965 we see (amazingly enough) Celler doing what he could not get done in 1965. New York Congressman Celler also had help in 1965 from New York Senator Jacob Javits as well as assorted Jewish writers and organizations. To be sure others pushed as well (Teddy Kennedy, LBJ, Dean Rusk, etc) but the heavy lifting for the bill was done by the Jewish community in America.

And of course the 1965 Immigration bill has succeeded in exactly the way it was intended. At the time we were told that the 1965 Bill would have no impact on the face of America by President LBJ who said upon signing the Bill,

“This bill that we will sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or our power.”

More false words have seldom fallen from the lips of a US President. Since signing the Bill we have seen the US Population which in 1940 was 89% white descendants of Europe died down seven decades later to 67% and is still falling. Of course LBJ isn’t alive today to tell us now how Hart-Cellar didn’t affect the lives of millions. In point of fact it has, contrary to LBJ’s lies, restructured the daily lives of our children and grandchildren.

So, why did the Jewish political powers fight so hard in 1924 to stop the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act and why did they continue to fight until they successfully overturned it with Hart-Cellar in 1965? Well, we don’t have to guess because one of the Jewish literati pulled back the curtain to answer that question.

Jewish journalist Charles E. Silberman in his 1985 book, “A Certain People; American Jews and their Lives Today” explained why Jews have always supported multiculturalism; “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history, that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, for example, approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take liberal stance on most other so-called social issues.”

The thinking here is that as Jews have always felt persecuted they have taken refuge in seeking to turn social orders wherein they live into majority minority social orders. The thinking is that if no one ethnic group can be ascendant Jews cannot be themselves singled out for abuse. It is merely a form of the old coda of “divide and conquer.”

That this disposition continues is seen in the words of Barbara Lerner Spectre Founder of the European Institute of Jewish Studies in Sweden;

• “Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”
  
  Of course all of the above is bad form to even notice. This push has so insulated itself from criticism that to even observe its existence is considered criminal and somehow a violation of some kind of law against holocaustianity, and that despite the fact that there is nothing above that is even close to being outlandish, bigoted or libelous. In point of fact it is merely stating the glaringly obvious. Were it not the case that we have been busy stabbing out our eyes so that we can’t see all that’s been said here, all that’s been said here would be considered very pedestrian. A real bore-fest.
  
  There is nothing un-Christian in the least to love one’s own people and to desire to protect them from the wicked designs of others who love their own people to the point of seeking harm against Christian’s loving their people.
  
   

Starting off this morning we want to do a little house-keeping from last week.

First, a word on vocabulary.

Last week I think it was Wendy who said that she is keeping a notebook of new words she is hearing. I was exuberant when I heard that.

This is a good idea. We should not be surprised to hear vocabulary in Church that we may not be familiar with. This is so because the Church and the Christian faith has its own language much like any other discipline.

If one is a philosopher one is going to have to have his philosopher lingo. He will need to learn what dasein, geist, and noumena mean to successfully navigate philosophy. If one is a historian one is going to have his historian lingo. He will need to learn what Geschicte, Heilgeschicte, and historigraphy mean. Similarly, if one is a Christian one will need to learn a vocabulary that allows them to successfully navigate the Christian faith. For too long the Church has dumbed down both our ministers and our congregations so that the Church has lost a vocabulary that should be uniquely hers. As such, we all should together try to learn the Church’s language.

Now, we said this week that we wanted to try and preach Unconditional Election from a Worldviewish point of view. That is we desire to tease out the doctrine of Unconditional Election from a perspective that demonstrates the Impact of the doctrine in areas we may not associate it with.

Let us first start with an idea that one can find somewhat commonly in older theologians but which has largely been eclipsed in the last 70 years or so. And that is the idea that

I.) Unconditional Election also applies to Nations.

We see this screamed in Matthew 25

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another,as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

Here we see the Nations being separated out. Clearly what is going on here is that Elect Nations are being divided out from Reprobated Nations. Herein we see a covenantal – corporate aspect of the Gospel. Christianity is not solely an individualistic faith. It is covenantal and takes in the idea of Nations. Here we see that it is Nations that are divided out. Similarly we see the elect Nations all over the book of Revelation.

We are so used to thinking about Christianty only in terms of the individual but even here we get a sense that Christianity remains covenantal and corporate. Jesus commissions His men to go and disciple the nations. Here the Nations are divided out and separated according to Elect and Reprobate status. There in the book of Revelation we see that “leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations.”

Now, in order to demonstrate that this is not some novel idea arrived at on my part allow me to quote a couple of my theological betters to demonstrate that this idea has a good pedigree. First we pause to consider Lorraine Boettner. Boettner belonged to my grandparents generation. In his book “The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination,” Boettner could write,

“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.”

~ Loraine Boettner,

“The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination” (1932)

There we see this idea of National Election which, in turn, requires the idea of National Reprobation. God, for His own Glory, pours out grace on some peoples while actively hardening others and does this for reasons all His own.

Now, when we speak of National Election we should not be heard to say that every single person in a people group whom God has elected will themselves be individually elected. Just as Israel in the OT was God’s Elect Nation there were many who though of Israel were not of Israel (Romans 9:6-7). They were tares in the Elect nation wheat field, but their presence as tares did not negate that Israel was God’s Elect Nation.

Just so today, much of the West, even as yet in my lifetime, was comprised of Elect Nations. Nations who, in the words of Boettner, received much greater spiritual and temporal knowledge than others. Indeed that is why the West was once known as Christendom. It was known as Christendom because God’s National Election was heavy upon the Nations of the West. Like Israel of old the Elect Nations were not occupied by every man an Elect individual but like Israel of old were Elect Nations in the the Boettnerian sense of receiving much greater spiritual and temporal knowledge.

Come Come my friends … who can deny that for generations the West were comprised of Elect Nations while the Middle East, Far East, the Indian Subcontinent, Africa, and others have been reporbated nations?

But it is not only Boettner, following Scripture, who teaches this idea of Elect nations, it is also the case that the great Geerhardus Vos likewise explicitly taught this idea found in Scripture.

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “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 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos

What Vos is telling us here is that though Israel was an Elect Nation there remained in Israel non-elect individuals. Not all of Israel was of Israel. The breaking off of the Branch of Israel from the olive Tree did not mean the elect individuals were cut off but rather that Israel as having the status of Election Nation wherein God’s grace was poured on the people (nation) as a whole is over… at least for a season. When this breaking off … this reprobating occurs the season for finding God in that nation is over for the lion’s share of individuals in the nation.

This affirmation of National Election by Vos, as he follows Scripture, reinforces again the fact that God deals with people not only or even primarily on a individual basis. God deals with people covenantally and corporately – yes even in Unconditional Election. God deals with families, peoples and Nations. Our loss of this thread in our theology has moved us as Reformed people from being covenantal to being Baptistic and so indvidualistic.

And who would deny that we men of the West were, at one time, those who were blessed to belong to Elect Nations and peoples? We were branches grafted into the Olive tree. How greatly did God shower upon us His grace and goodness. The aroma of Christ is everywhere present in our History, in our founding documents, in our established law orders, in the family Bibles which once were easily at hand to show the generational records of those baptized and married in the Church passed on from generation to generation. The aroma of Christ was present in our Blue Laws which found businesses closed in order to honor the Lord’s Day. The aroma of Christ was present when on Good Friday for years and years all businesses shut down at 12Noon so people could attend Good Friday Services. The aroma of Christ was present upon us as an Elect Nation when women were kept out of Pulpits because the clear teaching of Scripture was owned.

How the gold has dimmed and who can say whether or not we remain Elect Nations? Much evidence suggests that we are now a Reprobated Nation. A nation that instead of being a wheat field with tares, is a tare field with wheat.

So, this idea of National Election is offered to you as one Worldviewish way to see the doctrine of Unconditional Election. Unconditional Election not only applies to individuals but it also applies to Nations and where a Nation is the elect of God that Unconditional Election reality ripples through all their Institutions, Laws, and way of life. The Elect Nation status leavens everything so that even reprobate individuals in those Elect Nations are held in check in terms of the depravity they might otherwise pursue had they lived in Reprobated nations.

When we consider National Reprobation the opposite would be true of what we have suggested about National Election. Where a Nation is Reprobated that Nation demonstrates that Reprobation status in a million ways. It kills the unborn. It celebrates the Union of Ron and John, and Mary and Sherry, it ordains the queer but celibate.

So, the first way to understand Unconditional Election in a Worldviewish kind of manner is to realize that Unconditional Election is corporate as well as individual.

All of us should give heaven no rest that God might Unconditionally elect this Nation once again…. that he would graft us again into the Olive tree of Romans 11. Repentance is the needed theme for Americans today.

A second Worldviewish way to view Unconditional Election is to realize that the embrace of Unconditional Election in and of itself is at warfare with the idea of Democracy.

Indeed, this doctrine of Unconditional Election rightly understood is the death-knell of Democracy.

Democracy, when gone to seed, posits the equality of all men. It is a leveler mechanism. Calvinism, when it is the real stuff, has always been at war with Democracy and that precisely because of this doctrine of Unconditional Election.

The famous American Educator John Dewey understood the conflict here between standard Christianity with its doctrine of Election and the Democratic spirit. Dewy once revealingly offered,


“It is impossible to ignore the fact that historic Christianity has been committed to a separation of sheep and goats; the saved and the lost; the elect and the mass. Spiritual aristocracy as well as laissez faire with respect to natural and human intervention, is deeply embedded in its traditions. Lip service—often more than lip service—has been given to the idea of the common brotherhood of all men. But those outside the fold of the church and those who do not rely upon belief in the supernatural have been regarded as only potential brothers, still requiring adoption into the family. I cannot understand how any realization of the democratic ideal as a vital moral and spiritual ideal in human affairs is possible without surrender of the conception of the basic division to which supernatural Christianity is committed. Whether or no we are, save in some metaphorical sense, all brothers, we are at least all in the same boat traversing the same turbulent ocean. The potential religious significance of this fact is infinite.”

Note what Dewey is doing here… and this is significant because Dewey’s theories became adopted and embraced by America’s public schools. It was and remains the background rattle and hum that all of us who attended government schools were immersed in. Dewey is saying that the Democratic ideal is at Warfare with Christianity precisely because of its doctrine of election. Dewey was an enemy of God separating Goats and Sheep. Dewey rails against the idea that Christians don’t accept the egalitarian doctrine of the Brotherhood of all men and keep in mind it is our doctrine of Unconditional Election which forbids us by Christian Confession from embracing the pagan idea of the Brotherhood of all men. Dewey’s America – and that is the America we live in – hates Unconditional election because Unconditional Election distinguishes between inferior and superior…. it creates Aristocracies both Spiritual and Natural and so it must be snuffed out.

So, when we as Christians embrace Unconditional Election in its broadest meaning and implication we have set ourselves again Democracy and Egalitarianism. Our enemies understand this better than we do. They are so adamantly anti Christ precisely because we believe in this doctrine of Unconditional Election root, twig, and branch. We believe that because God’s Sovereign Election not only applies to spiritual categories but also to natural categories – and all this by grace alone and God’s sovereign choice – therefore better and worst categories exist, so egalitarianism is a lie from the pit that smells of sulfur.

Now in the modern Reformed Church I can see, in my imagination, the brick-a-bats that are coming in my direction. But once again, I have taken to myself an old habit that you know of. I am not one to get out on a limb apart from dragging some poor Church Father with me to give me coverage. This time I have brought the venerated Abraham Kuyper. You may cast bricks at me, but before you hit me you’ll be hitting Kuyper.

Listen to Kuyper and learn where I got what I have just said for the last few minutes,

For this is precisely the high significance of the doctrine of Election that, in this dogma, as long as three centuries ago, Calvinism dared to face this same all-dominating problem (of the presence of distinctions), solving it, however, not in the sense of a blind selection stirring in unconscious cells, but honoring the sovereign choice of Him Who created all things visible and invisible. The determination of our own persons, whether one is to be born as girl or boy, rich or poor, dull or clever, white or colored, or even as Abel or Cain, is the most tremendous predestination conceivable in heaven or on earth; and still we see it taking place before our eyes every day, and we ourselves are subject to it in our entire personality; our existence, our very nature, our position in life being entirely dependent on it. This all embracing predestination … all-dominating election. Election in creation, election in providence, and so election also to eternal life; election in the realm of grace as well as in the realm of nature … all Christians hold election as we do, in honor, both in creation and in providence; and that Calvinism deviates from the other Christian confessions in this respect only, that, seeking unity and placing the glory God above all things, it dares to extend the mystery of Election to spiritual life, and to the hope for all life to come?”

(A.Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, pp.117-119)

Conclusion

Now in rounding off this morning, we should raise a warning. The idea of being of the Elect is not only or primarily even one of privilege though it certainly is privilege. Scripture teaches that

“To whom much is given much is required.”

And so the truth of Unconditional Election should humble us… should energize us to work for the Kingdom. We have been given more than we will ever be able to praise God for and the consequence by all rights should be that we labor for the crown rights of King Christ.

1.) R2K Dog Obedience School.

“Where your Dog will learn the Master’s Commandments.”

2.) Theonomy Specialty Pork Outlet

“We Serve Only the Very Best Pork Butts & Ribs.”

3.) Federal Vision Grace Alone Ministries

“The New Testament Exists For A Reason”

4.) Christian Identity International Import Shop

“We won’t sell it unless it is came from the third world”

5.) New Perspective On Paul Immigrant Resettlement Center

“No Jews Allowed.”

6.) Kinist Adoption & Bridal Procurement Center

“Japanese Brides For Lonely White Men Is Our Specialty”

7.) Hyper-Preterist End of the World Sale

“It all has to go before the World ends.”

8.) Dispensational Travel Agency Inc.

“We Will Send You Anywhere Except Israel.”

9.) Rome’s Day Care and Development Center

“We’ll Teach Your Child All The Basics.”

10.) Doug Wilson’s Fallacy Emporium

“Money Back Guarantee That You’ll Never Again Use a False Dichotomy”

11.) Lutheran’s School of Logic

“Because Appealing to Mystery is Never a Legitimate Form of Argumentation”

12.) Mega Church, Suits For Men and Dresses For Women Gift Shop

“Formal Wear For Every Worship Service Your Minister Could Ever Lead”

13.) Open Theists Religious Training Campgrounds

“We Will Help You Find The Comfort In Knowing That God Knows All.”

14.) Pentecostal Center For Calming & Relaxation Techniques

“Teaching People for Four Generations Now on Keeping Pulses Low”

15.) Episcopalian & Anglican Passion For Life Boutiques

“Where We Teach Our Century Long Technique of mastering vivid expression”

16.) Presbyterian & Reformed Library of Rationality & Common Sense

“Our Name Speaks for Itself; We Make It All So Clear.”

17.) Seminaries -R- Us

“No Institution Has Proved Itself Over the Last 20 Years Like We Have.”

18.) Westminster Seminary California

“No Koreans Allowed”

19.) D. G. Hart’s School of Government & Magistracy

“Who Knew That God’s Word Had So Much to Say on the Subject?”

20.) The Gospel Coalition’s Ida B. Tarbell’s School of Journalism

“Providing Ironic Examples of How ‘Truth Is the First Causality of War'”

That the white man has been superior in building civilization there can be no contesting.

“[…] It is generally assumed that that there was no difference between our Barbarian ancestors [the Western Caucasian] and their African contemporaries. But it is a wholly erroneous belief. Nothing has ever evoked a response, an answering chord in the dull breast of the Negro; neither the example of the previous civilizations nor the natural challenge of great rivers and beckoning seas. In contrast to this, our pagan ancestors ranged the world in their superb long ships, from the Caspian to America. The stuff of poetry was in them from the beginning. There were horizons to be crossed, distant and unknown lands to be explored, perils to be faced, enemies to be smitten, mighty empires to be toppled—all forming the material for their great sagas and epics. They had considerable powers of organization; for no mere barbaric rabble could have overthrown Rome, still less have preserved it and defended it against the hordes of Asia once having conquered it. However much, on other occasions, they plundered and destroyed, yet they built all the great nations of Europe, including Russia. They were free men, not bondsmen; and no matter how formidable to their enemies, they honored their women and treated them as equals. Long before the coming of Christianity they recognized the marriage bond, the one wife and companion. Polygamy was never practiced by them, any more the cannibalism. History therefore refutes the popular conception and insists there is something innately lacking in the Negro and always has been. Unlike the white man the Negro has never dominated his environment and has always been completely dominated by it. In this respect we might compare Africa with Iceland, and African art with Icelandic art. In spite of Iceland’s isolation and its almost absolute lack of raw materials suitable for artistic reproduction, Icelandic art—let alone its literature and poetry—has been incomparably superior to anything produced in Africa, notwithstanding the very great natural advantages enjoyed by Africans. The Negro has had many opportunities of acquiring civilization but has rejected them all. He has been in contact with civilization from the earliest times, certainly long before the tribesmen of northern Europe were in contact with it. Aesop knew the Blackamoors, bondsmen who were always purchased, but he knew nothing of the tribesmen of Germania and Scandinavia. The Negro was in contact with the Egyptian civilization, the Phoenician, the Greek, the Roman, the Arab, the Persian, the Indian and more latterly our own; yet no spark of emulation was ever struck in his dull breast. If we travel up the east coast of Africa we find substantial buildings and ruins all the way from Mozambique to the Bajun Islands, all showing unmistakable evidence of foreign culture and occupation. But never is there any sign of any attempt by the Africans to copy or improve on these buildings. As has been noted, when East Africa was colonized in the late nineteenth century, the African possessed neither a road nor a wheel nor a piece of money despite the contacts mentioned. Today they have changed because they have been literally snatched up in the White colonial machinery and have had no choice but to change. But they obviously resent it and revert violently whenever they have the chance. The very first things they destroy are the schools and mission stations and clinics which they associate with their enforced emancipation; and the first people they kill are those who have done the most to help them advance.”

~ Anthony Jacob

So, in terms of White supremacy, when it comes to building civilization the White man does have supremacy but this is completely by God’s grace alone, whether it is God’s grace in providing the genetic substratum that is the white man or whether it is that the white man thinks God’s thoughts after Him in conversion and so builds civilizations of strength and beauty. It is all by God’s grace alone but that fact doesn’t make it any less true that the White man is indeed supreme in building civilization.

The white man has also been supreme is extending charity and philanthropy to the other races. Nobody has spent more time, treasure, and blood in seeking to build up and help other races than the Christian white men. When one considers the missionary efforts to help people of other nations, peoples, and races there can be no doubt that the White man, by God’s grace alone, reigns supreme. It is not even close. Go ahead… read the inspirational stories about Wm. Carey, Hudson Taylor, Adoniram Judson, C. T. Studd, Henry Martyn, William Borden and numberless and countless other white missionaries who spent their all in seeking to bear the white man’s burden in bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to other peoples and races. They built schools and hospitals. They dug wells and built houses. They not only preached Christ which was by far the most important privilege, those white missionaries also physically improved the lives of those who were not as blessed as they and they did it for the glory of God and for the benefit of their fellow (and now ungrateful) man.

When one considers how other nations, peoples, and races profited by colonization in the 18th and 19th centuries there can be no misgivings about the generosity of the white man. Certainly the standard of living for the average inhabitant of the five other continents was much higher when the white man ruled than what it is now 100 years later. One example of this superior ruling of the White man is recorded by Charles James Napier, a British general and Commander in Chief in India in the first half of the 18th century. Gen. Napier was told that the Hindu law system of India required the burning of the widow alive upon her husbands death as they both occupied the funeral pyre. General Napier’s response?

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

Of course we are reminded of Cortez’s rescue of the enslaved tribes of the Aztecs when he dismantled that social order as built by the Aztec Mestizos in their blood thirsty ceremonies and cannibalism.

Examples abound of how the White man created order out of disorder, expanded life spans with his medicines, channeled the usage of previously untapped resources, rescued women from sub-human status, built civilizational infrastructures (Railroads, Roads, Hospitals, schools etc.), brought literacy, even creating alphabet and written language and so literacy for countless tribes and peoples. All of this is irrefutable evidence of the White Man’s superiority in building civilizations.

Naturally, the White man is a great sinner also, but as that is all the news one can find about the white man in our “I hate the Christian White man times” I’ll let others tell you about the White man’s sins.

In all this, try to keep in mind the distinction between ontology and economy. No one is saying here that ontologically the White man has been superior, but certainly considered economically the White man has had, by God’s grace alone, the supremacy in building civilization.