James White’s War Against Aristotle

The Aristotelian concept being discussed is that of philia, in which it is asserted that “democracy is possible only within homogenous ethnic groups” and that multi-ethnic democracies are chaotic because they lack philia—unity. This leaves them vulnerable to tyranny. In other words, democracy cannot operate under multiculturalism.

But of all people to respond, enter James White.

Eric, I have to ask…. Aristotle had no Christian concept of man. He had no concept of the Spirit of God, regeneration, etc. And he was speaking of city states, and often those cities would have far, far fewer inhabitants than our modern cities today, let alone nations. So surely you would agree that the φιλια of which he speaks refers to the ancient unity of tribe and family, and that in our modern context, true φιλια would come most clearly from a common commitment not to ethnos, but to kurios, to nomos, to a shared fidelity (in the Christian worldview) to Christ, yes?

While Aristotle was no Christian, it is rather strange to be Reformed and argue that Aristotle’s paganism invalidates him when the Reformers often quoted Aristotle. Moreover, the size of the society is irrelevant to the concept of philia, and if anything, the inability to have cohesion on a city level would equally prove chaotic on a transcontinental scale. Throughout history, ethnogenesis has combined various smaller tribes into greater people, such as the Italian peninsula following the invasion of Hannibal.

Conn objects to the juxtaposition between ethnicity and Christian faith that White has presented. At length, White responded, breaking down each question with a direct answer:

*Are you assuming Aristotle couldn’t make true observations about nature (or politics) because he wasn’t regenerate? Why?*

As I explained on the DL today, Aristotle was talking about small city states, a very different context than we face today. Further, what I said was he lacked the vitally important reality of divine revelation as to man made in the image of God, sin, redemption, regeneration, etc. As such, he could not accurately speak to how unity amongst sinners could ever be obtained. Do you think a true analysis of man’s condition could be derived outside of special revelation?

The irony is that politics is still very much analyzed through an Aristotelian lens of the three forms of government, those being autocracy, aristocracy, and republic, with their respective negative forms. When the American founders rejected democracy, they very much did so using Greek observations, including Aristotle, ignoring the issue of scale that White presents. Again, if White were to contend the merits of any particular form of government, like a constitutional republic, he would be utilizing philosophical understandings derived from Rome and Athens, which would include understandings about human nature gleaned from history.

*If so, this is certainly not how the bulk of church fathers (or Reformers) treated him.*

Eric, where did Ignatius, for example, make reference to Aristotle? Clement? Why did Tertullian say, “What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?” Do you really think the influx of Greek philosophy, such as seen in Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, was a positive development? Are not the Scriptures sufficient for the man of God?  Where did Calvin, for example, direct us to Aristotle for insights into the human condition and the peace we seek in society?

The reformers, including Calvin, relied on the Greeks to make their arguments. Calvin cites a proverb of Cato to argue against excess luxuries (Institutes 3.10.4). Turretin even uses the Greeks to not only argue the existence of God but also that God is of one essence. He used a pagan to contend a key aspect of the Trinity. The Reformers had no issues using the Greeks insofar as their reason conforms to Scripture. This can be done without equating philosophy with Scripture. The burden is on White to prove that the influence of the Greeks was a negative to the Church. Otherwise, it is to suggest tension where none exists.

*Why do you assume that the “ancient unity of tribe and family” is inherently oppositional to “fidelity to Christ”? Why is it either/or?*

Because every time Scripture speaks of the unity of the Church, it does so outside of the categories of “tribe and family.” You are well aware of this, of course:

and have put on the new man who is being renewed to a full knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, and freeman, but Christ is all and in all. (Colossians 3:10-11)

*Certainly would be a radical position to take when compared to the great Christian fathers of church history. And the Apostle Paul.*

Well, as I just showed, that is not true. Paul’s view of unity is that is created by the Spirit renewing the elect, not in tribes and families. As a professor of church history, I would be interested in what you think indicates some kind of predominance of a “tribe and family” viewpoint, over against the “elect from every nation” viewpoint of Scripture.

The rest of the tweet is an argument that shared election in the Spirit triumphs over “tribe and family.” This is similar to the debate over whether a white American Christian has more in common with their white neighbor than a Nigerian Christian halfway across the world. Yes, there is shared faith, but there is not a shared way of life between the American and the Nigerian. The two neighbors would share culture, language, history, experiences, etc. that would not be shared with the Nigerian on account of proximity. That members of all races are grafted into the true race of Israel is a glorious paradox, but it does not erase the existence of earthly categories nor does it nullify the concept of Ordo Amoris with regards that one should most love those within their immediate proximity.

Moreover, there seems to be an inability to nuance proper Two Kingdoms Theology as the diversity of an earthly nation is being conflated with diversity amongst the true nation of God. The kingdom of heaven will consist of all nations, but this does not mean that the nations of the earth are to be diversified to reflect heaven. In his book, Stephen Wolfe laments the fact that faith has not historically unified Christians of different nations or prevented wars, so while one can contend that unity in Christ transcends national boundaries, history within a fallen world has regrettably proven otherwise. This is not to suggest that the absence of Christendom would be less violent, as the 20^th century proved, but a reminder that violence still occurred between Christian states.

Aristotle’s philia clearly insinuates that a multicultural society cannot properly function. Maybe Dr. White should take a look at America. The culture has radically destabilized since the 1965 immigration act drastically altered the demographics of America, as also seen in all the other Western nations that began importing the third world. The Civil Rights Act further destabilized society, not only by usurping freedom of association, but led to lower quality education, racial violence, anti-white discrimination, and white flight. Mildly stated, whites have been fleeing the consequences of the Civil Rights Act since its passage. Both Christopher Caldwell and Jeremy Carl have written books on this subject, or is their analysis impermissible because it is not Scripture?

Conclusion

The use of Aristotle to suggest that multiculturalism does not work has clearly pinched a nerve with men like James White, but also Samuel Sey and Kris of All Things Theology (who are both black). Recently, both James White and Doug Wilson did struggle sessions regarding Jews, which relates to Aristotle’s notion of philia in how modern teachers refuse to be realistic about race due to modern sensibilities that were absent in our forefathers.

Aristotle’s poignant observation regarding multiethnic democracies is as relevant then as it is now, but there is a generation that remains averse to acknowledging racial differences and how they impact society.