Adam & Eve as mulattos

Posted by T on June 15, 2009
Ethics

This continues the review of Ken Ham et al, One Blood: I continue with item 1 of the list of topics: the hypothesis that the genetic diversity seen today could have emerged in a short time from one pair of parents if they were mulattos.

As Ham is at pains to point out, a pair of mulattos can generate children exhibiting a whole range of racial characteristics. This is how he explains the eventual divergence of humanity into races. Adam and Eve would have had a brood of children including Negroes, Aryans, and other Mulattos (I am simplifying the model to make the discussion tractable). Free intermarriage leading to an ongoing mulatto mixing-bowl continued until Babel (p. 69). After Babel, groups separated from each other based on language (p. 71). Initially, each group had the full spectrum of racial characteristics, including the mulatto base stock. Then, survival of the fittest sifted out the non-optimal traits from each “people-group” according to climate and geography (pp. 71-73).

The first question Ham’s Mulatto Model raises is what the divine creation intent of that diversity would be for history, looking forward in time from the moment of creation. The instability of the genetic reproduction should either be maintained through history, or accommodated. If the divine intent in creation were (1A) to maintain the “humanity as mulatto” model, then it would have been incumbent on the offspring to seek out such mates as would make that likely — that is, the Aryan children should actually seek out and prefer the Negro children of the mulatto couple; while the mulatto children could mate with other mulatto children. Otherwise, there would be a tendency toward racial sifting and refinement, leading to the separations that we in fact see today, which by hypothesis is counter to the creation intent.

On the other hand, suppose the creation intent of Adam and Eve as mulattos was (1B) to look forward to a gradual historical diversification, in which the racial diversity would serve as a refractive rainbow-creating medium to reveal the glory of God in its diversity-in-unity. This model has intuitive appeal since it would give a telos to the genetic differentiation of humanity analogous to the diversification of gifts and callings; it would do so in terms of the Trinitarian unity-in-diversity principle; and would apply the organizing principle of the glory of God, which can be more fully reflected from many facets. See my colleague’s speculation on how racial diversity could be carried out eschatologically (even though that reflection does not presuppose the Mulatto Model).

Unfortunately, Ham excludes the B variant explicitly. We mention it only as a logical possibility for rescuing his model.

If we call Ham’s Mulatto view model #1, consider the opposite model, #2, whereby Adam and Eve were of one of the sifted, refined races such as we see today, contrary to Ham’s proposal. In that case, the racial diversity that ensued would have been brought about by providential changes in time. Whether such changes should be classified as “mutations” or something else, would need to be debated by geneticists and philosophers. That is not important here, so much as the decision, would the changes fall under the category of chance or covenant? By chance I do not of course mean a view of ultimate randomness, but rather, a manifestation of the decree of God that is ethically neutral as it were. In this view, the question then is, is the historic diversification of humanity from a primeval pure form, a manifestation of (2A) an ethically-neutral, “random” throwing of the dice, or (2B) under the rubric of covenant, governed by blessings and curses?

The table presents the four views in their 2×2 structure. Row 1 represents “Adam and Eve as mulattos” view, and Row 2 represents “Adam and Eve as a telic (i.e. stable, planned, desirable) race.” Column (A) represents subsequent history as value-free or non-eschatological, while column B represents history as value-laden, teleological, or eschatological.

A. Non-eschatological

B Eschatological

1. Adam & Eve as mulattos

Mixing bowl to be re-mixed each generation

Racial diversity as telos of creation

2. Adam & Eve of a telic race

Diversity by mutation governed by “chance”

Diversity governed by blessing/curse motif

We can summarize the problems using the table to aid in organization:

•    The (A) column (value-free history) is counter to the warp and woof of Scripture. In general, Ham’s book does not entertain a view of Providence characterized by blessing and cursing. Yes, there is plenty of curse (pp. 27, 29, 31, 36, 44) but no blessing, and no historical coloring of the curse-motif: it is all Fall. There is no common grace within Providence, nor specific curse that might differentiate the “people groups.”  The “curse” is simply the new “natural law” of genetic mutation and natural selection. But Scripture presents the history-producing aspects of creaturely reality as ethically and covenantally charged, and overlaid with sovereign grace. Ham’s view of history is homomorphic with a naturalistic view.

•    The Ham model (Row 1) sets up a pattern of development that is in stark contrast to the creation principle of like begetting like (“each after its kind,” Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25). Birds beget “birds of a feather,” not all kinds of different colored birds. Humanity’s basic look and sound would be unstable in contrast to all the other species.

•    Which came first, the chicken or the egg? the tree or the seed? How you answer that in large part reveals whether you are a creationist or evolutionist in the bones. The purpose of the chicken is not merely to produce eggs, but the purpose of the egg is only to produce chickens. There is an asymmetry. Creation breaks the apparent symmetry and establishes the teleology of type by putting the chicken, and the tree, first in time, before the egg or seed. But this creation principle is disrupted by the mulatto model (row 1). The mulatto is genetically unto something else, not an end in itself.

•    More specifically the 1A version (perpetual mixing-bowl telos) means that the mulatto start is potentiality that is never fulfilled. Its inherent power of diversity is never exemplified fully.

•    Likewise, the 1B version (mulatto start unto the end of racial diversity) means that the mulatto start is potentiality that is not fulfillable except in something other than what it is. This would be different than every other pattern we see in Creation.

•    2a has, in addition to its anti-covenantalism, a conceptual problem: Even if some genetic mutation were governed by the category of chance, yet how could the outcomes be regarded as value-neutral? Is an IQ of 120 of equal value to 80? Is a tribe that produces all eye- and hair-colors equal to one that can produce only one? Is a tribe that can grow enough food to export equal to one that ceteris paribus cannot grow enough for itself?

Though the (1b) form of their model is more appealing than (1a), note also it does not support their agenda of favoring miscegenation. For, if racial refinement and diversification were the creation intent, then it would be natural and normative for fathers or tribesmen to resist an amalgamation that ends the refinement and moves back toward the generic mulatto. The teeth would be taken out of Ham’s acceptance of miscegenation. To put it bluntly, anti-miscegenation would be a creation mandate. Moreover, as people spread out over the earth and developed individuated cultures, it would be natural to do so on ethnic lines. The citizen/alien distinction would be largely coterminous with “race.” Dialects would develop on ethnic lines.  In short, history would develop exactly as we see that it in fact has developed and this would be ethically normal on the (B) variant of the model.

Striking out the rejected possibilities from the discussion to this point, we are left with 2B as the only theologically-sound possibility. Note that this view also leads to the unpacking of history as outlined in the previous paragraph, but does so in terms of covenant, in terms of blessing and cursing, and common grace that may be distributed equally or unequally, according to God’s will.

Where did Ham go wrong here? I submit it was a failure to think theologically in two main areas. (1) The eschatology of his racial model. Ham has painted himself into an embarrassing corner, as unpacked above. (2) The relation of science and creation. Creation is a necessary presupposition for the possibility of science, but creation is itself opaque to science. The same comment applies to Providence when it reflects free sovereign choice. It is interesting that the authors conceive Babel to be a miraculous creation of languages – which would therefore not be subject to Grimm’s Laws or any other linguistic insight – but they cannot entertain that the genetic dispersion might have been of such origin as well – and thus not subject to ordinary genetic research.

At the end of the day, Ham’s worldview is thoroughly naturalistic. Not surprisingly, “nature red in tooth and claw” in the form of survival of the fittest governs his view of the emergence of races, not God’s loving Providence.

As covenantal thinkers, we are left with the (B) column in any case, and probably 2B. Unfortunately for Ham’s thesis, regardless of which row governed by (B) is lighted upon, it would not lead to a “race-neutral” outlook.

But perhaps Ham’s party will attempt to escape between the horns of the dilemma I have presented by recourse to Christian libertarianism: individual freedom governed by covenantal categories that do not ever apply to collectives. Perhaps the divine intent in creating a mulatto couple was to enable the exhibition of maximum freedom of the individual in tribe-less autonomy, governed only by conformity to specified precepts, and to be judged in individual eschatology at the end of history. Examining that outlet will be the burden of the next section.

Tags: ,

18 Comments to Adam & Eve as mulattos

  • What if one of the eschatological “ethnic” groups that God has intended to exist at the end of history alongside of the other ethnic groups is a genetically, culturally, and linguistically mulatto group (as is currently developing in the United States)? Just as English is a distinct (mutt) language (from other more traditional languages) even though it includes words that have Latin, German, French, Italian, Chinese, Spanish etc. In the same way, the United States has it’s own unique culture not exactly like any other culture, yet similar to other cultures in that it incorporates other cultures into its own.

    As far as I can tell, when Moses married a Cushite (Num. 12), he was a semite (caucasoid) who married a black (negroid) woman (Jer. 13:23). If God were against miscegenation, then that would have been the perfect opportunity to correct Moses. Rather, God corrects Aaron and Miriam’s seeming complaint that their younger brother married outside their race because of “Jungle Fever”. There were various kinds of “leprosy” (skin diseases) back then. One of which resulted in the flesh turning white as snow (Exo. 4:6). By judging Miriam in the way God did by giving her leprosy, it was almost as if to say, “You want *white*? I’LL GIVE YOU WHITE!” Implying that God wasn’t as racist (or better put, racialist) as Miriam and Aaron were.

    We know that Timothy’s mother was a Jewess while his father was Greek. Yet nowhere is that frowned upon in the NT. We also know that Uriah the Hittite was an honorable man, possibly even godly (2 Sam. 11:11) and he was married to Bathsheba, a daughter of Eliam, a Jewess. Yet, rather than rejoicing that David, a Jew, takes back a Jewish woman from a gentile, God is displeased. Even our Lord has Moabite blood flowing in His veins.

    That’s not to say that there is no anti-miscegenation passages in the OT. Since there clearly are. However, the various contexts make it clear that it was expected and required to prevent the curruption of the true worship of the one true God.

  • Praise to the Ever-Living for the fine minds He has given to His servants, to men like yourself, T. Thank you for helping those of us with little education to sift through some of the more daunting aspects of current debates.

  • You said…

    If we call Ham’s Mulatto view model #1, consider the opposite model, #2, whereby Adam and Eve were of one of the sifted, refined races such as we see today, contrary to Ham’s proposal.

    Which “race” do you propose Adam and Eve were? Isn’t it anachronistic both sociologically, socio-biologically and genetically to ask such a question?

    You said…


    In that case, the racial diversity that ensued would have been brought about by providential changes in time. Whether such changes should be classified as “mutations” or something else, would need to be debated by geneticists and philosophers.

    Now who’s more of an evolutionist than a creationist? I’m a Continuationist Calvinist, rather than a Cessationistic Calvinist. I assume you’re the latter (as most Reformed folk are). But you seem to be appealing to providence in a way that goes contrary to ordinary providence when you appeal to “mutation” to support a form of racial diversity that goes contrary to Ham’s. Ordinary providence would seem to support Ham’s view of diversification. Rather than some sort of minor, imperceptible yet incremental genetic miracles (special providence) periodically happening down through the centuries.

    Speaking of providence, I find it interesting that I recently found (and eventually) bought a lone copy of “One Blood” by Ken Ham in the used book section of a library. I also recently discovered your website through Triablogue. I started reading the book RIGHT BEFORE you posted your FIRST blog critiquing the book. I had no idea you would.

    Reading your second article, it appears to me to assume that the races are in their final and fixed state. What if some races were providentially meant to rise and fall through mixing? That is, providentially appear and disappear down through history? Not all the races that can develop have yet developed. Different characteristics can still be mixed in novel ways.

    Before the arrival of the Spaniards to the New World, the indiginous peoples (for the most part) didn’t have European blood. Though, there’s good evidence that other races arrived to the New World long before Columbus set out to “sail the ocean blue.” See the works of Barry Fell and how some of the early colonnialists were surprised to find blonde haired and blue eyed Indians. But at the present time, many who we call Latinos and Hispanics have Spanish blood in them just as Filipino’s (like myself) often have Spanish, Chinese, even Africoid blood. In which case, “modern” Latinos and Filipinos are a relatively “new” “race” that didn’t exist prior to the 16th century.

    In our modern world, the races are mixing again. Actually, they never really stopped mixing. Part of the problem of racialism (not to be confused with the negatively connotative word “racism”) is that it suffers from the Sorites paradox. You can never really tell where one race ends and another race begins. Because of that, defining “race” is difficult to do. Defining an ethnic group might be easier, but it often crosses “racial”, linguistic and cultural lines. So, while you might say that Britons and Poles are both “white”, their cultures are totally different.

    So, for example, where does the “white race” “end”? Eastern Europeans sometimes have Asiatic features (due not only to the fact that Europe and Asia meet to form Eurasia, but also because of the reach of the Mongol Empire). Think of Yul Brynner who played Rameses opposite Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments. Western Europeans like the Spanish and Portuguese sometimes have semitic features partly because of their interbreeding with Sepharidic Jews. The movie “Day of Wrath” with Christopher Lambert is based on a true story of how a group of Spanish Jews hid their Jewish ancestry because of anti-semitism. Something which many individual Jews have done down through the centuries. When they did, they often interbred with their non-Jewish neighbors. Even many American whites unknowingly have Ashkenazi Jewish blood.
    The French often have Arabic features because of immigration from Algeria/Algiers to France (due to French Rule of Algeria), and further back, to the encroching Ottoman Empire. Due to immigration by Europeans (above and beyond the Nazis fleeing tribunal) , many of the present day people of Brazil look positively European. Even American blacks often have white ancestry (as we all know due to the past when white slave owners interbred with their black slaves).

    The reality of the mixing of the “races” is such that I can understand the fears that some white racialists and racists have about the future of the “white race”. Because of the fact that many whites don’t have many children (if any) to replace themselves, and because many of them are marrying outside their race (Jewish, Asian, Black, you name it), many Neo-Nazis/Nazis (even those promoting “Christian Identity”/Anglo-Israelism/British-Israelism) believe that if drastic measures aren’t taken, the white race may disappear not too many generations from now. For all we know, the “white race” may disappear and be replaced by hitherto unknown races with white ancestry. Just as there really aren’t any more “pure” Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Picts, Celts etc.

    As I suggested above, the races may not be in their final and fixed state. In fact, by God’s providence, races, like languages appear on the scene and disppear. There are languages, “races” and ethinic groups which have vanished. Where are the pre-Columbian Mayans? Or the Hittites? or the Assyrians? Moabites? Amalekites? Yes, some of their genes continue in the people groups who now live in those regions formerly occupied by those lost races, but as a group, they are lost to history. We may not be at the final stage of Redemptive History, and God’s providence has a way of going contrary to our intuition. For all we know, Christ will not return for another 10,000 years.

    Btw, as Calvinists, I think we would agree that Rev. 5:9 doesn’t literally mean every single ethnic group that has ever existed, or will ever exist. That is, unless God sovereignly and unilaterally saves some people apart from the means of the preaching and reception of the gospel. While I think God is sovereign enough that He could do that, there’s no Biblical warrant for us to expect that He has or does.

  • Speaking of “new races”, the Samaritans were a “new race” during the time of our Lord’s earthly ministry, in that they were neither truly Jewish nor truly gentile. While the Jews of that time for the most part looked down on the Samaritans, we know that Jesus reached out to th Samaritan woman (and her people through her), as well as used a Samaritan character in a parable where the Samaritan was the protagonist.

  • James, no one claims that any race is pure. No one claims that there are not ebbs and flows in history, and new people groups created and dying. You are attacking a straw man argument.

    The problem is you don’t know what’s going to happen before it happens. And this seems to be Ham’s view and your view, that European peoples are “finished” historically and that we have no right to instruct our children to seek to enhance their genetic capital with a high-quality Christian mate of the same race.

    I appeal back to the catechism:

    Q. 74. What is required in the eighth commandment?
    A. The eighth commandment requireth the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others [a].

    We now know that certain qualities in people vary by race, and even exceptional individuals are subject to regression to the mean, i.e. the descendants of a given race slowly revert back to the average type for that people group. Thus, our genetic heritage is a form of wealth that no one can demand we redistribute lawfully. Overall, I’m quite satisfied being European and would rather be European than anything else. I believe healthy individuals of every race should feel the same way, as God has gifted all peoples with certain strengths that they would not trade away even in exchange for losing certain weaknesses. In other words, people like being themselves.

    So if we’re happy being European, think being European is a measure of wealth and common grace of God we should seek to preserve in ourselves and in our children, what right do you or Ham or anyone else have to bind our consciences against doing so?

    It’s never been a sin and never will be a sin for parents to look at a variety of factors, some of them immutable (for example, I wouldn’t want my daughter marrying someone with a serious genetic deformity that would propagate in grandchildren), when instructing children on the wisdom of mate selection.

  • BigC said…

    And this seems to be Ham’s view and your view, that European peoples are “finished” historically…

    I don’t think that European peoples are finished historically. I was just saying that people groups can reach “the end of the line”, and that new people groups can come onto the historical scene from those dead people groups. People groups, like empires and civilizations can rise can fall (e.g. Rome, Babylon, Parthia, Mayan etc).

    BigC said…

    …and that we have no right to instruct our children to seek to enhance their genetic capital with a high-quality Christian mate of the same race.

    I do believe people have that right. Just as people have the right to “marry up” or EVEN “marry down.” Though, as Christians I do believe we ought to be good stewards of what God has given us and strive for greater productivity and weath in all forms (and I suppose that includes genetic wealth). I think it was a lecture by Rushdoony that first pointed out to me that while Jews during the Middle Ages encouraged their best and brightest to become rabbis and have many children, the Roman Catholic Church had their best and brightest become priests and make a vow of celebacy. In so doing, allowing the good genetic stock go to waste (though obviously not all priests kept (or keep) their vows, so at smaller portion of those genes were passed down and kept in the gene pool).

    BigC said…

    We now know that certain qualities in people vary by race, and even exceptional individuals are subject to regression to the mean, i.e. the descendants of a given race slowly revert back to the average type for that people group.

    True, but sometimes genius pops up in the most unexpected places. This is partly why, to this day, people question whether William Shakespeare actually wrote the the works attributed to him. He neither came from an especially noble family nor received a greater education than his peers.

    BigC said…

    Thus, our genetic heritage is a form of wealth that no one can demand we redistribute lawfully.

    Agreed. That’s why I would oppose legislation that would require people to contribute their DNA for the furtherance of things like the Genome Project, cloning etc.

    BigC said…

    So if we’re happy being European, think being European is a measure of wealth and common grace of God we should seek to preserve in ourselves and in our children, what right do you or Ham or anyone else have to bind our consciences against doing so?

    I haven’t finished Ham’s book yet, so I don’t know if he would try to bind other people’s conscience in that way; or whether you’re presenting a worse case senario. I definitely wouldn’t require that.

    Having said what I said about the Genome Project, what would you think of the following situation. I’ve heard anecdotal (unverified) stories of a person who had some biochemical (and/or genetic) protection from HIV (just as some people who have certain forms of Thalassemia have protection from Malaria because of a possible mutation). Someone else (his doctor?) patented whatever it was that gave the person protection and didn’t ask for permission or even share the potential profits. Would you say that this was wrong, right or something in between? What if it was taken against the person’s will for the sake of common good of all people/races apart from profit? Btw, I know in an earlier post, I spoke negatively of your mentioning mutation. I do believe that mutations can have advantageous results. I wasn’t critiquing mutations per se, but the apparent magical appeal to them to explain genetic diversity. Though, I might have misinterpreted what you meant.

    My main question is whether you believe a Biblical case against miscegenation under the New Covenant can be made. Do you believe it’s sin or not. Prudential or not? It seems to me that the primary reasons in the OT that prohibited miscegenation was so that 1. the worship of God might remain pure, and 2. the Jewish race would remain genetically pure enough so that the Messiah could be born according to prophecy (which is part of the reason for the flood). Now that the Messiah has been born and the New Covenant has been offered to all peoples, the prohibition seems to have been removed. Just as, the permittance of incentuous marriages was eventually banned in the Mosaic law.

    I ask that because so far nothing you’ve said would prohibit a highly intelligent and genetically robust individual from one race interbreeding with another person who is also highly intelligent and genetically robust from a different race.

    It also seems to me that if God could accept interbreeding between Jews and Gentiles, then a fortiori God would allow and accept interbreeding between two gentile groups, even if they are from seemingly (i.e. outwardly) polar opposite “races”. For example, between a white person and a black person.

  • James — I guess you wrote #1 before actually reading the posts, since, notice, you give your view on the list of topics that I have promised for the future. If you stick with this series, I trust you will come to see how silly most of those arguments are (which I take it are not yours, but that you are parroting them from Ham and various Reformed schoolboys that write pamphlets and magazine articles out there).

    #3 —

    you make a number of assumptions. For example: Model 2 does not require “imperceptible yet incremental genetic miracles (special providence)”. It could have happened all at once, at Babel or some other time (Noah’s sons?) or it could have been gradual. The only requirement for the definition of Model 2 is that it is by some other mechanism than what we observe in the offspring of Mulattos according to modern genetic theory; that being required, because Model 2 hypothesizes that Adam and Eve were not mulattos. Thus (among other problems) this has nothing to do with the Cessationist question. Ham grants — I think he does anyhow — that the language change at Babel was something other than “ordinary linguistic development” such as can be studied wissenschaftlich.

    The “Sorites paradox” can be overstated. On a spectrum, you may not be sure of exactly where yellow stops and orange begins, yet not give up on the belief that yellow and orange are real colors. Racial recognition is actually quite instinctively easy, universal, and nearly infallible it seems to me. Borderline cases are almost as rare, and almost as disturbing, as seeing someone on the street and not being able to tell if it is a man or woman.

    (BTW mulattos were far more prevalent among free blacks in northern cities than they were on southern plantations. You have been propagandized my friend.)

    Much of your meandering about the future of races seems beside the point. You raise some practical issues that would be worthy of further discussion, once we agree on the model to use as the basis for discussion. Some men may feel they don’t belong to any tribe and we need to figure out how to help them; but we should not go from observing orphans to thinking families don’t exist. I think maybe you took my reference to eschatology as implying that every race that has ever existed will exist to the end. That is not the point. The point is to reflect on the teleology of Ham’s Mulatto model. What would the divine intent have been in making man with such a nature? It seems utterly strained to think that there would be this vast diversity of what we today call racial characteristics re-exhibited in each generation, yet “not noticed” by anyone as at all important. Rather than do that, why would God not have simply created a single stable race like in the case of every other creature? So you need to plant your mind at that point in history, i.e. the beginning of history and reflect conceptually as you examine the arguments I have presented in the post. Perhaps your evident commitment to Bible + Natural Law will lead you to the 1B camp which is better than Ham but still sub-biblical in my view because not taking into account covenant and history adequately.

  • I myself am not yet convinced interracial marriage is always a sin, though I am open to being convinced (I rather wish it was a sin, so I could give my children more clear teaching). It certainly is if done without parental approval. Mostly it’s a wisdom thing, and I think it’s wisely avoided.

    Ham and company (and I apologize if I lumped you in) seem to have an agenda to undermine parental authority in this area by saying any racial consideration regarding marriage is “racist” and sinful.

    I feel a special kinship to my own race not because they are superior but because they are mine.

  • Quick questions about the views of First Word on certain topics:

    1. Does First Word (FW) hold to the “Christian Identity”/Anglo-Israelism position?

    I’m a Calvinistic Baptist so I don’t know much about the goings on among Presbyterians. But I understand that Rushdoony rejected British-Israelism and endorsed the booked titled “Identifying Identity” by Pastor Ovid Need Jr.

    2. Does FW hold to the “Seed of Satan” Theory whereby some modern self-identifying Jews are are actually the physical descendants of Eve and the Serpent of Genesis through Cain?

    and/or

    3. Does FW hold to the the “Thirteenth Tribe” theory popularized by Arthur Koestler which argues that modern Ashkenazi Jews are not true genetic Jews. That is, their ancestors are not Biblical Jews.

    I’ve got a 4th question, but I think I’ll leave that for another post.

  • James — No I think I won’t answer. Not only am I already bored by the answer, but more importantly, it would be counter-productive. Such information does not advance the argument presented by this thread. Moreover, it would reinforce you in your poor methodology of pigeon-holing, and evading arguments.

    Focus, focus, focus. If you have an argument of the following form:

    1. If Adam & Eve were not mulattoes then Anglo-Israelism theory is true
    2. But Anglo-Israelism theory is not true.
    3. Therefore, Adam & Eve were mulattoes

    If you can show (1) and (2), that would be interesting. However, it would be interesting regardless of what opinions FW has on the subject.

    So, study, understand what the subject of discourse is and then IF you have something interesting to contribute, then and only then do so.

    We are discussing Ken Ham’s theory that Adam and Eve were mulattoes.

  • I’m a Calvinistic Baptist so I don’t know much about the goings on among Presbyterians. But I understand that Rushdoony rejected British-Israelism and endorsed the booked titled “Identifying Identity” by Pastor Ovid Need Jr.

    I wouldn’t go that far. I knew Rush personally, and from his reading choices and his liturgical choice, and from the articles written in Chalcedon Report before his demise, while he may (like I) find the anabaptist, ‘neo-pseudo’ Judaizing tenets of ‘CI’ to be so much drecch, he clearly noted ( as did Tolkien, Lewis, and Belloc) that Christianity is a “White Man’s religion” as it is a EUROPEAN Man’s religion.

    The avoidance syndrome going on among those who are trying to call others’ racists’ while acknowledging the superior position intellectually of articles such as this, is absolutely hysterical. Multiculturalism and miscegenationism are heresies founded on a Bolshevik, Jewish racial supremacism, grounded on the fallacy that the ‘jews’ are the CHosen People, when even St. John said, 2000 years ago, that they are NOT!

  • According to the book of Jasher, Moses never slept with his Cushite wife, who he married as a young man. If blacks are truly Adamite, they are Cushites, (Cushites were, or became, black)and the fact Moses did not sleep with his Cushite wife should give you pause. And if you read that passage, you’ll find that it was Moses’s authority, not his marriage, that was at stake. Moabites were Semites, and it is quite plausible that Moabite was simply a geographical term, like “Australian” or “American”. Even if not, Boaz’s marriage to Ruth was more like a German marrying a French girl than a white marrying a black or Chinese. Timothy’s parents were also probably of different faiths, so that is not a valid argument. Also, just because David should not have committed adultery with Bathsheba doesn’t mean that she should have married Uriah to start with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*