In the year 2025, one might be surprised to think that the most pressing issue in the church revolves around Christian Nationalism or so-called white supremacy, but according to the ARP, PCA, and NAPARC, it is. Woke Wars 2 came for the synods, with the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church adopting the following resolution:
That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.
While the language was criticized for its ambiguity, particularly the concept of association by omission, the entire statement is going to lead to the weaponization of church discipline process against faithful, mostly white, pastors and laymen who believe politically incorrect things regarding the subject of race. Moreover, it will unduly condemn previous generations of sin where none exists, all in favor of serving modern notions of race.
This statement is not going to combat legitimate hatred but rather encourage the liberal concept of anti-racism while reinforcing the racial egalitarianism of the Civil Rights Act on the church level under threat of discipline. It will unnecessarily bind the consciences on matters not subject to the sphere of Church authority.
Westminster Confession of Faith
Chapter 31 section 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith reads as follows:
Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude, nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth; unless by way of humble petition, in cases extraordinary; or by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
The WCF does not allow church synods to deliberate civil affairs that concern the commonwealth. That the ARP statement contains a reference to “political teaching” would constitute meddling in the affairs of the civic realm. The core problems with the statement arise when applied outside the realm of the ecclesial into the realm of the civil. Many issues regarding race relations and the failures of multiculturalism deal in this sphere, and so proper analysis or even valid conclusions of truth would be in violation of this statement and would lead to unbiblical church censures. Under its confession, the church does not have the right to deliberate the validity of “political teachings” and would inevitably conflate the two spheres in application.
The primary objections to be outlined concern how this statement attempts to govern the ecclesial realm in the same fashion as the civil realm.
Natural Hierarchies
The notion of white supremacy, or the term supremacy more broadly, is by definition ordinal, meaning it pertains to the classification and ranking within a category. Superiority and Inferiority are ordinal terms which denote rank, class, or status, with the term supreme denoting the most superior within an order. In this case, the rankings of race.
Proponents of the statement will doubtless refer to verses like Galatians 3:28, which reads, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” This verse applies to the Church, not the world, yet it is common to see it employed to conflate the spiritual and heavenly with the earthly domains. Within the ecclesial sphere, there is neither Jew nor Greek, but there is in the political sphere.
Men and women are equal before God, but they are not equal on the earth, as Scripture clearly places Man over Woman, while Isaiah articulates the inversion of patriarchy as inherently oppressive (Isaiah 3:12). St. Paul makes ontological arguments when arguing for male headship in marriage, exclusivity of male ordination, and head coverings. Gender is an immutable characteristic. If the language of the statement were to swap out race with gender, then the substance would imply that there can be no teaching that posits that men should be superior to women in ecclesial or political spheres. Such a statement would promote egalitarianism while condemning teachings on gender roles. Political ideologies that critique the role of women in politics would be outright condemned by this hypothetically revised statement.
Regarding “slave nor free,” there is no class before God, but there is class hierarchy on earth. Class is a very real distinction and necessary for a flourishing society, and Scripture does not condemn class hierarchies, but rather reinforces them. Primogeniture is contained in the Law of Moses, with the firstborn receiving a greater portion of the inheritance. It also should be noted that primogeniture is best for the land and crop yields as constant division of the land between siblings over generations would shrink the fields and reduce the yields, rendering a far less efficient agrarian society.
Slavery is neither sinful nor condemned in Scripture; instead, it is subject to regulations, some of which are applicable to modern employer-employee relations. In a fallen world, slavery persists in many ways. While Americans claim to have abolished it via the 13th Amendment, slavery remains with us primarily through debt-slavery. Moreover, slavery as a mentality is prevalent. In A Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun described liberty as a reward rather than a blessing not to be bestowed “on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious, to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it.” In a fallen world, many are incapable of being anything more than servants. This aligns with what Aristotle would call a “natural slave.” Whether a servile status is necessary for human flourishing in a fallen world has also been debated throughout history, including Rousseau or De Juvenal, yet two things are certain: elites sway the direction of the populace (Elite Theory); and a virtuous elite is the best safeguard against tyranny. Scripture resoundingly affirms the former as a theme in the 1st and 2nd Kings, while America’s Founding Fathers were the virtuous aristocrats. Whereas egalitarian ideologies oppose class hierarchies as innately immoral, they are both necessary and good. In any civilization, class hierarchies will emerge as is natural.
Ideally, the elites would represent the best, or the glory, of society. The concept of Noblesse oblige speaks to the notion that with such blessing comes responsibility to those beneath one’s status. As Christ said, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48). Roman patronage and medieval feudalism were predicated on obligations associated with one’s class. Scripture reinforces the notion that masters and slaves have obligations towards one another, just as husbands and wives have such duties, or children to their parents.
Can class be determined by race? Historically, the answer would be yes, though typically class is not determined exclusively by race. This would mean one class would be superior to another, whether by wealth, status, or nation. A man could purchase Roman citizenship, which is itself a rank of superiority, but the dilution thereof did correlate with Rome’s decline. The laws of the polity are tailored to the supremacy of the predominant group, whether it be Romans over noncitizens or even the privileges of Israelites versus sojourners, bastards, or converts who would be second-class on account of immutable characteristics. This is not to say that such a system would deny justice, as Mosaic Law precludes injustice, but rather that certain rights, like land ownership, can be tailored towards one particular group over another. The organization of a society to the benefit of one group of people over another could be classified as positing superiority, especially in modern parlance.
Overall, a society cannot be all things to all people but must be formulated to the interest of a particular people in a particular place. Political theory rooted in any form of egalitarianism is unnatural and contrary to a flourishing civilization.
Supremacy of Nations
Race refers to a people derived from a common ancestor, so while all are of the race of Adam, there are races within the human race. Even the Church has long been denoted as the “Race of Israel.” There really is no distinction between race and ethnicity in historical understanding. Moreover, the Greek ethnos is used to denote nations, so in the Scripture, Nations are Races are Ethnicities. Only in the semi-modern concept a nation-state is the nation more defined by the sovereign government than by the people who represent the populace. Does the Scripture assert that nations can be superior to one another?
Beginning in Genesis 9, there is the Curse of Ham, which, while out of favor because it is politically incorrect, is the historic interpretation of the Church. There are three components to the Curse of Ham: one, Canaan shall be a servant to his brothers; two, blessings for both Shem and Japheth; three, Japheth shall dwell in the “tents of Shem.”
The dwelling of Japheth is most commonly interpreted to imply the merging of Jews and Gentiles under the House of God, of which Shem is blessed via the prophecy. The enlargement of Japheth is seen in the hegemony of the Greeks, Persians, and Romans, thus representing earthly applications of the blessing.
Majority of commentaries emphasize Canaan’s role in the curse, in which his descendants will be servants and dispossessed, notably in the Promised Land. As Matthew Henry wrote, “Those who by birth were his equals shall by conquest be his lords.” The initial equality is undone by eventual conquest, in which other nations shall be their superiors. Keil & Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary emphasizes the curse on all of Ham’s posterity, though with emphasis on Canaan:
Although this curse was expressly pronounced upon Canaan alone, the fact that Ham had no share in Noah’s blessing, either for himself or his other sons, was a sufficient proof that his whole family was included by implication in the curse, even if it was to fall chiefly upon Canaan. And history confirms the supposition. The Canaanites were partly exterminated, and partly subjected to the lowest form of slavery, by the Israelites, who belonged to the family of Shem; and those who still remained were reduced by Solomon to the same condition (1 Kings 9:20-21). The Phoenicians, along with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, who all belonged to the family of Canaan, were subjected by the Japhetic Persians, Macedonians, and Romans; and the remainder of the Hamitic tribes either shared the same fate, or still sigh, like the negroes, for example, and other African tribes, beneath the yoke of the most crushing slavery.
Neither Phoenicia, Carthage, nor Egypt (Mizriam) were direct descendants of Canaan yet have had their nations cursed. Tyre was forever cursed in Ezekiel, never to be rebuilt following Alexander. Egypt was stricken by the LORD via the plagues, leading to their decline, where they spent the majority of the following millennia in a constant state of subjugation. Even in freedom, modern Egypt is overpopulated and impoverished, though its blood is doubtless mixed with the three sons of Noah in modern times. Carthage was famously destroyed by Rome, and Tunisia remains a failed Islamic state to this day. Likewise, the lowly Palestinians are descendent from the Philistines, though mixed with Arabs (Semites), who were derived from Casluhim, son of Mizriam. Though the bloodlines mixed, the land itself appears to have a lingering effect of the curse. These nations, along with the African nations, have only experienced prosperity when under colonial subjugation.
None of this is to suggest that the Gospel cannot overcome the ancient curse, as is most famously seen in Rahab, a descendant of the most accursed Canaan, but there is an earthly curse wherein the sons of Japheth and Shem exert superiority and judgment over those of Ham. The curse, though pronounced to individuals, speaks to the superiority and inferiority of nations.
Another interesting text would be Genesis 25:23 in which the superiority of Jacob over Esau is asserted. This would not transpire during the lifetime of Jacob, but speaks the nations within Rebekah’s womb, wherein Edom was later subjugated to Israel (2 Samuel 8:14).
In geopolitics, the term hegemony denotes leadership or influence but is derived from the Greek hēgemonía, which means leadership or supremacy. Nations exerting supremacy over other nations is a means by which the LORD orchestrates history. The British exerted supremacy over most of the globe at one point. The Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Romans all asserted supremacy of their respective nations over others. America is a global hegemon with the global reserve currency. The status as the “Supreme Nation” or “Global Hegemon” is not immutable but ebbs and flows with how the LORD orchestrates history.
Founding Fathers Condemned
When formulating a theological statement, it is always important to back-test the words against Scripture, Tradition, and History. Furthermore, for something to be innately true according to Scripture, it must work in practice. In other words, God’s word works in application, not theory. While the likes of Joel Berry would tacitly refuse to condemn America’s Founding Fathers as white supremacists, they would overtly condemn those who hold to their views on race, amongst other categories. The ARP statement is no different in application, as the statement would condemn all the Founding Fathers. It would be contrary to the 5th Commandment to pronounce woe against our ancestors where there is no guilt to be had. Most of the problems in American society pertain to the hatred of America’s heritage; for America to be made great again, there must be a reinvigorated love for the heritage, not disdain.
By modern standards, they would be construed as white supremacists. They did not believe in universal suffrage, granting the rights of non-whites or women to vote. They created the government for “ourselves and our posterity,” which was not meant to include slaves or third-world immigrants. In the first laws of Congress, they explicitly restricted immigration to whites only. In Federalist 2, Jon Jay wrote:
Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.
He explicitly argued that their shared blood, but also their shared heritage and experiences, was why they needed a federal government to defend their vast territory. His words did not apply to the slaves. MLK famously claimed that America was a check marked “insufficient funds,” but America was not built for European-descended peoples. Thus, the Founding Fathers, many of whom opposed slavery, did not issue on some farcical “promissory note” of universal equality as a founding principle.
If the Founding Fathers were to articulate their reasons for a limited suffrage to the blacks, they would inherently be positing that they as a group were unworthy to the privilege of political participation. This would be in part due to immutable characteristics. Calhoun wrote that “it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty…that an all-wise Providence reserved it, as the noblest and highest reward for the development of our faculties, moral and intellectual.” Calhoun argues that the superior development of a specific people (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) is what enables the system of liberty to flourish, and that this was guided by God. He credited God with the superior development that allowed for liberty. His disquisition argues against the universality of liberty, that while not exclusively against blacks specifically, would include them almost in its entirety along with other groups. He would also posit that equal liberty for all leads to despotism and lawlessness.
Doubtless, the ARP statement would condemn opposition to the 15th Amendment, which, if it were biblically just, would yield fruit towards human flourishing. But as Calhoun warned, it created and enabled anarcho-tyranny in American cities, often self-imposed by black voters to their own detriment: high crime, degraded neighborhoods, poor education, and the ubiquity of drugs. Similar arguments could be made regarding the 19th Amendment. The expansion of suffrage to all groups, regardless of immutable traits, has been a disaster for mankind. The moral decline, demographic replacement, and fiscal irresponsibility seen in the West have been fueled by universal suffrage. The Founding Fathers warned against democracy, but the subsequent generations transformed the republic they created into a democracy primarily through the expansion of the franchise.
Truly, the beliefs of the Founding Fathers were closer to those of John C. Calhoun than Martin Luther King Jr. A man’s worth before God is not determined by his ability to participate in a civic polity. Egalitarians would posit this as anathema, but so too this abominable ARP statement.
What is White Supremacy?
The Anti-Defamation League defines white supremacist as the following:
A white supremacist is a person, group or movement with an ideology based on one or more of the following key tenets: 1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co-exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own “culture” that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people.
At best, the ARP statement appears to tackle the fourth tenet, which is the most objectionable, but it de facto aligns itself with the ADL, which is how the statement will be enforced by the local churches.
Regarding the first tenet, whites mostly reside in nations that their people built. Thus, even the Founding Fathers would agree that they should have dominance in such nations. The aftermath of Post-Apartheid South Africa and Zimbabwe has proven that whites are unsafe under non-white dominion in nations they built. The fall of American cities, built by European-descended peoples, occurred because minority groups took over the cities via mass democracy. The same has happened in Europe with third world migrants overwhelming the cities. Forced integration instigated white flight and ghettoized the inner cities. If the franchise were as the Founding Fathers created, then this would not have happened. If a people built a nation, then they should have dominance over that nation by right of ownership and inheritance.
The third tenet is inextricably tied to dominance as culture is a facet of hegemony. The claim that Western Culture, which is intrinsically white, is superior to other cultures is a self-evident truth in part because it has been shaped by Christianity. Religion, Race, Language, Geography, History are all elements of culture. It is self-evident that Western culture is predominant in America, which is why many leftist causes seek to dismantle this cultural hegemony. To this end, they attack the statues, revise American history, promote multiculturalism, and transgress sexual norms. This pattern occurs even in nations where Christendom has been dead for centuries.
The second tenet is not sinful if applied to the civic realm. Orania is a thriving separatist community. Likewise, the failed states of Zimbabwe and South Africa prove that separatism is better for human flourishing. Likewise, the ARP would interpret opposition to the Civil Rights Act, like that written by the PCA’s Jeremy Carl, as tantamount to white supremacy because it asserts that forced integration has been a failure. One could not argue that forced integration of the public education system diminished the quality of American education, while being the catalyst for the decline of American cities. Whereas many contend the reason for such segregation was malice, history has proven it to be a necessary guardrail for the functioning of a multi-racial society, without which, American education has collapsed. It would also be weaponized against beliefs that non-white immigration has been a net negative for white nations.
The fourth tenet is the most objectionable, as genetic determinism is a niche problem, but the ARP statement in application would criticize any discussions on genetics with regard to race. Genetics does play a profound role in culture, as race is more than skin color. IQ is not the sole determining factor for all of life, but intelligence is tied to genetics, and there is a correlation between race and IQ, which have tangible effects at scale. Some groups have superior aptitudes to others, which legislated equality cannot overcome. A genetic predisposition towards aggression is the likely reason why, anywhere in the world, blacks commit more violent crimes per capita than whites. Even black women are more violent than white men. Per capita, Asians are generally the least violent. Time preference, IQ, and aggression are all linked to genetics, which then manifest in the cultures of various races. Detractors will often claim that asserting such truths contradicts the universal sinfulness of man, but hardly so, as it would be expected that the human genome is fallen, too.
Though not genetic, there needs to be greater discussion on the effects of hormone disruption on sinful behavior. Unsurprisingly, homosexuality is linked to low testosterone levels, which could be treated with testosterone replacement therapy. While this does not purge the spiritual effects of sin, it could mitigate physiological desires. The same must be discussed regarding hormonal birth control in women. Biology plays a role in the proclivities of particular sins within a population.
Overall, the ARP statement would interpret the sinfulness of a political teaching according to the definition of supremacy as established by the ADL, which has hegemony in anti-racism. While one can condemn genetic determinism regarding the spiritual condition of man, the statement seeks to regulate teachings and sincerely held beliefs that pertain to race in the political realm, not born of malice but evidence.
Minimal Violation
Dr. Stephen Wolfe, author of A Case for Christian Nationalism, has repeatedly asked what the minimal violation of this statement would be, with little response. There is no minimal infraction. The statement is designed to be vague so as to punish wrongthink. It will not be enforced against minorities or used to remove their denominational affinity groups.
Statements like “America for Americans” assert that Heritage Americans have a superior claim to America as a nation, as would all opposition to the Great Replacement, which can also be called White Replacement. Western governments are intentionally replacing their white populations with third-worlders, who inevitably would degrade society through incompetence, dependency, and violence. Import the third world, become the third world. Demographics are Destiny. Americans cannot fight mass immigration and demographic replacement without acknowledging the obvious racial component and the animus by which proponents of replacement harbor against whites. These people, whether legal or illegal, do not belong and cannot assimilate due to factors that are immutable.
Suggesting that all politics is identity politics is in itself a political teaching which naturally concludes the need for white collectivism to combat the collectivism of other groups, yet finds ardent opponents in the likes of Doug Wilson, Neil Shenvi, James Lindsay, and Joel Berry. The castigation of identity politics for white people would only serve to fuel the progressive decline of America. President Trump took on Identity Politics to great victory using the identitarian slogan, Make America Great Again. As Stephen Wolfe famously said, “white evangelicals are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America,” but these eleven words would implicitly violate the ARP statement as it asserts cultural superiority on moral grounds.
As mentioned, beliefs in opposition to the Civil Rights Act, Hart-Cellar Act, universal suffrage, desegregation of public schools, or failures of multiculturalism would all constitute political teachings that would violate the ARP statement, with how broadly the term white supremacy is used. Fundamentally, these politically incorrect beliefs all convey that racial egalitarianism is destructive to society.
Wolfe contends that this statement will be used to purge right-wing thought from the churches. The concept of association by omission will punish men for beliefs they do not even hold, which was the basis for Ryan Turnipseed’s invalid excommunication within the LCMS. Christians who adhere to historic thought, both political and theological, are inside the churches and the seminaries. The pastors are well aware of this. They pass this statement to enshrine the egalitarian, Civil Rights conception of race as religious dogma.
Conclusion
The ARP statement is gaining ground within American Presbyterianism, with the PCA adopting it during the General Assembly. By attempting to regulate political thought, which is in contradiction to the Westminster Confession of Faith, it will inevitably be weaponized to police politically incorrect beliefs about race with no limiting principles by men who lack expertise in either political theory or anthropology.
In the long run, this statement will die as the next generation takes leadership in the American Church, which increasingly rejects diversity, equity, inclusion, and many other egalitarian dogmas cancerous to society. Nevertheless, the Church continues to lag behind the culture by a decade, but recovering the wisdom of the past gives cause for optimism in the future.
One Response
I hope the OPC stays away from this. I’m thinking about attending one since my SBC church is more like a mega church with theatrics, etc.