“The belief of white superiority has been part of the United States since its inception. The white European imperialists who settled here believed they were inherently superior to nonwhite groups. These beliefs justified atrocities like the genocide of Native Americans and nearly 250 years of African slavery. After slavery, white supremacist ideologies manifested into a series of laws that would limit the freedom of African Americans, known as Black Codes and Jim Crow. White supremacy and its legacy can still be found in our legal system and other institutions through coded language and targeted practices. “

Smithsonian Museum Article
For their Black History Display

Let’s be clear here. When we speak about ontology all races are created equal in the sense of all men, regardless of race, being the Imago Dei. From the Orientals of Asia, to the Ndebele, Xhosa, Shona, and Zulu of black Africa, to the brown man of India and South Africa, to the white man of Europe, all races of men, considered ontologically are Image Bearers and so are equal in that regard and will always remain equal. Man qua man will never be able to strip himself of being an image bearer of God.

However, when we speak about the taxonomic value of races as a matter of comparison there can be no doubt that for the past 1500 years or so that the White race, as it as been shaped by the Christian faith, has been clearly without dispute superior. When the White man showed up on these shores the Native Americans were not the noble savage that the Romanticist worldview desires to create. No, the Native Americans were serving gods who delighted in the pain that their servants could inflict on their captives. The Native Americans were in may cases cannibals. The Native Americans were treating their women like pack mules. Now, to be sure some Native American tribes were less monstrous than other tribes but they were all clearly inferior to the Christian White man. The same is true of the savage black brought from Africa. Taxonomically speaking the White man was clearly superior. The white man was sailing the seas, building cathedrals, developing complex legal and social orders, building inventions that were stupendous, and exploring and discovering lands so that trade routes could connect continents with the effect that the Christian Gospel traveled along these trade routes to bring the good news of Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the taxonomically and comparatively backward people of other lands.

Where the legal system of White men was superior to the “legal systems of the non-Caucasian” they were superior because those legal systems were based on God’s law.

None of this is to say that the white man was without sin. It is merely to say that the Christian white man was superior, and often remains superior to men who are the suppliants of other inferior gods who leave them as inferior as the wastrel gods they serve.

So, ontologically all men were and are created equal but when it comes to the taxonomies of the various races there can be no doubt that by God’s grace alone the White man has been superior. The White man just needs to get used to that idea and quit apologizing for their taxonomic superiority and remain humble by reminding themselves that it is only the God of the Bible who has caused us to be superior.

We would also do well to remember that to whom much is given much will be required.

Genesis 17:11-13,27

[11] And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. [12] And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. [13] He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [27] And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Could Abraham attend a church today? I mean, he bought people with money, and those people would have been called SLAVES. Further, could God attend church today? I mean, after all, God told Abraham to circumcise his slaves so that the slaves as slaves would be members of God’s household as members of Abraham’s household.

Further, despite the fact that Abraham owned slaves, Scripture still refers to Abraham as a “friend of God.”

First Presbyterian in Columbia, SC, better take every mention of not only James Henley Thornwell and Benjamin Morgan Palmer plaques off their church and conferences they should also take Abraham and even that slave sanctioning God out of their Bibles.

Dear Pastor,

I’ve watched the video and read your comments. Okay, so maybe there is some irony to choosing Martin Luther King as an example of a black life who mattered. But you spend an inordinate amount of ink letting us know that. I also agree that the video overemphasized the idea of whites being the originators and behind-the-scenes puppet masters of abortion. However, your characterization of the video’s creators and intent (Cultural Marxist, devil’s propaganda, virtue-signaling) strike me as both excessive and a little silly. If this really is a not-so-subtle attempt to bash whites, then why the statement about BLM not caring about black lives half as much as white pro-life fly-over trump-voting evangelicals?

I agree with the video. I think it makes a powerful statement. And I didn’t see any acknowledgement of that in your comments. Frankly, I think you missed the forest for the trees. Also, I’m not sure that Jesus Christ is pleased with your comments. There is a lot of disdain and even some name-calling (Slick Willie, full retard). I don’t think the latter would be appropriate from anyone, much less a Christian.

David

Dear David,

Thank you so much for responding.

1.) The ink on Martin Luther King is necessary because the man is constantly being lifted up as some kind of hero when in point of fact he was a villain of the worst sort. When New St. Andrews continues in that fashion (and by putting King front and center in this video New St. Andrews is perpetuating that myth) then let rivers of cyber ink flow to the end of bringing low the hero status of Martin Luther King.

2.) I am fine w/ you thinking that I was “a little excessive, and am silly.” I am of the conviction that  moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

3.) It is true that white Evangelicals were mentioned in passing. However, only after blaming White people and without holding the black community responsible for their self inflicted holocaust. Strikes me as disproportionate. However, kudos to the video for getting that one slice right.

4.) I didn’t acknowledge that the video made a powerful point because I don’t believe it made a powerful point worthy of applauding. It is my conviction that the powerful point you saw was lost in the other powerful points. The point that I believe that was powerfully communicated is that black people are not responsible for their holocaust. That point is not beneficial to the black community. The second powerful point I received from the video is that white people are the reason that black people lives don’t matter.

5.) Frankly, I think you missed the trees for the forest. So there … take that. (Imagine me playfully sticking my tongue out at you.)

6.) You may be right about Jesus not being pleased with my comments. I have a bad habit of using a soft touch. I am a work in progress on that score. Be patient with me. I will seek next time to really bring the fire.

7.) Please note, that I quoted somebody else who used the word “retard,” though I must admit that I fully agree with that assessment. All retard means is someone whose mental acuity is slow. If the shoe fits… And the Slick Willie reference is hardly the stuff of personal injury.

8.) David, allow me finish by saying if you expect to survive the next 20 years or so you need to re-asses what is and is not appropriate for a Christian.

Thanks again for writing,

Pastor Bret

I am currently reading Mark David Hall’s “Did America Have a Christian Nation?” This book is intended to be a general refutation of those who insist that America’s founders, as a whole, were not Christian but instead were Deists. Hall concedes that one can make a good case that Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine were public Deists, though Franklin said some might odd things for a Deist. Hall then goes on to concede that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were, in their private letters and lives, before their presidencies, Deists. However, at that point says everybody else that is typically painted as a Deist (Madison, Washington, and Hamilton) are men, from whom, there is a mixed testimony from their letters and actions and as such Hall refuses to concede these men to the Deist column.

If any of you are familiar with the writings of John Eidsmoe, Hall is similar though Hall gives a bit more detail on the Founders and their Christianity and doesn’t quite get as far out on a limb does as Eidsmoe sometimes did.

But as to the question of the book title, “Did America Have A Christian Foundation,” there is a corresponding question that has to be asked; If America didn’t have a Christian foundation then what religious foundation did it have?

Now, there are many, including those who want to make America’s founding as one based on Enlightenment Rationalism, who will insist that America had no religious foundation and that it was founded as a “secular” State. However,the answer “none” is not an option. All nations without exception have a religious foundation and operate consistent with some expressed religion.

How do I know this?

I know this because every nation has some law order. Every law order, in turn, is dependent upon some a-priori conception of “right and wrong.” Every a-priori notion of “right and wrong” in turn is based on some God or god concept. One simply cannot legislate on law apart from right and wrong and one can not adjudicate right and wrong apart from a God or a god concept who or which provides the standard for the right and wrong that law proclaims upon. Finally, every God or god concept yields a religion that serves as the outworking of the will of that God or god concept in the whole of the social order and nation.

What this means is that all nations without exception have a religious foundation and operate consistent with some expressed religion. It is not just that Israel has Talmudism for its foundation or that Saudi Arabia has Islam as its foundation or that Japan has Shintoism as its foundation, it is the case that every nation (as well as every family and individual) has some religion as a foundation.

Anyway… give Mark David Hall’s book, “Did America Have A Christian Foundation,” out for a spin. If you are a Christian you will find encouraging insights.

Addendum

It really is irrelevant whether or not America had a Christian foundation in terms of whether America today should have a Christian foundation. Even if America didn’t have a Christian foundation (something I strongly disagree with) that would have no bearing on the fact that all nations are responsible to bow the knee to Christ right now so that law (as well as education, politics, family life, etc.) is to be built on a Christian foundation.

All the stories have been told
Of our heroes and men of old
But there’s no Christendom now
Lost to us all our legacy somehow
Replaced by aliens now in our fold
There’s no Christendom now

All the wars fought for the King
All the songs that we would sing
But there’s no Christendom here
The memory is no longer in our seed
No impulse to fight for King and creed
There’s no Christendom now

The few Warriors who now remain
Lead ghosts in their military train
There is no Christendom now
Instead minister imps mount their desk
Rail against past Christendom grotesque
There’s no Christendom now

The Prophet erudite who would rally
The rank -n- file to battle finale
Find there’s no Christendom now
No faith to animate shield and sword
Instead reasons as why it is untoward
To fight for Christendom now

But a future day is sure to come
When men again will sound the drum
And there will be Christendom again
The wicked will die or mercy plead
And gladly makes pledges and accede
To Christendom once again