“The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith.” (Hilaire Belloc, 1920)
Dr. Belloc’s sociological appraisal of Christendom is that the European peoples are uniquely Christian and Christianity is uniquely European. He contends that the two are rather inextricable from one another. He is not alone in this assertion. Matthew Henry held similar views, as had Martin Luther before him. Calvin also expressed such sentiments at various points in his career. There have been entire compendiums gathered on the Eurocentric teachings of both English and American Puritans (see Anti-Blackness in English Religion 1500-1800 as well as Puritan Race Virtue, Vice and Values 1620-1820, both by Joseph R. Washington Jr. em.) Such views are even found woven throughout the writings of the church fathers. They were also notably the de facto orthodox position of the Southern Presbyterians such as Thornwell, Palmer and Dabney. Most recently these views are preserved in the Dominionist writings of R.J. Rushdoony, Chris Ortiz, et. al. This Eurocentric Faith is also found, to the horror of many a mega-church soccer mom, replete in the writings of C.S. Lewis (see The Pilgrim’s Regress) and that of J.R.R. Tolkein (especially LOTR).
Beyond the writings of the more overt representatives it is both fair and accurate to say that Belloc’s was the historically orthodox view of Christian Anthropology and Social
Theory. Even in circles which spoke or wrote little on the subject of race, the Ethno-Christian view was held practically and codified with the deepest religious conviction in all quarters of Christendom.
It is an oft overlooked fact of late that racial integration was opposed by virtually all American Christians up to and through the time of the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling. Despite the dogged resistance of the Moral Majority, the tri-pronged assault of the Academy, Media and Court would compel the Church to acquiesce to the new social orthodoxy (see Alan Wolfe’s The Transformation of American Religion).
Likewise, South African Apartheid found unwavering support in the various Dutch Reformed denominations up until the radical takeover of that government in the 1980s at which point the Reformed community would grudgingly distance themselves from the segregationist institution of Apartheid for the sake of political viability.
Call it the European character of Christianity or the Christian character of European Man—either way, Christianity was universally recognized as “the White Man’s religion” by Christian and Heathen alike. In Kipling’s day (a vastly more Christian era) The White Man’s Burden was in no way conceptually fringe. It wasn’t “racist”. It certainly wasn’t sinful. On the contrary, it reflected Christian Orthodoxy.
Christendom took European Man to be uniquely blessed amongst the various tribes of the earth. The White Man was seen as uniquely predisposed to the Faith. The nature of this predisposition was seen at once as the product of both cultural and biological lineage—nature and nurture. While we can distinguish between the two, we cannot wholly separate them. While a people may be influenced by cultural means, a good culture (Christianity) is embraced and propagated by individuals who, by the grace of God, have placed in them certain inclinations prior to the impartation of the culture in question. St. Paul attests to this when speaking of the Bereans (prior to conversion) as “…more noble-minded…” (Acts 17:11) and when he said that Cretans (apparently post conversion) were “always liars, evil beasts and lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12). It should be pointed out here that the Apostle does not shrink from the strongest generalized denouncement of certain ethnicities (viz., “evil beasts”) any more than he does from generalizing others as “noble” irrespective of their conversion status. A prophet has asked accordingly:
“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer.13:23)
Whether one interprets this literary device as an analogy, a metaphor, illustration or a simile, some things are perspicuously clear: The Ethiopian is posited alongside a beast of particular viciousness in an illustration concerning things which are “accustomed to do[ing] evil”.
The Ethiop is offered as a parallel example of a beast with a uniquely predatory disposition—the leopard. Both the Ethiopian and the Leopard may be culled under certain circumstances but it cannot change their innate proclivities. There is no sense in which the modern multicult Minister would utter such social blasphemies but the Prophets and the Apostles do so brazenly.
Though useful, the subject of the Negro is only tangential to this article. In as much as the Negro possesses heritable traits, so too does European Man. What then is the biblical testimony concerning the fairer tribes?
“’May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant.’ And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. So all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.” (Gen.9: 27-29)
This has historically and orthodoxically been understood as the “grafting in” of the gentiles (Rom.11).
“From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.”(Gen.10:5)
These Japhethite tribes are uniquely referred to as “the Gentiles”. The moniker is in this passage directed at the White tribes of the earth rather exclusively, appearing nowhere in reference to the line of Ham. But that’s not to say that the Church has taken that to preclude all Hamite descendants from the Church (Phillip did take the time to witness to an Ethiopian eunuch afterall); rather, this “enlargement” or “grafting in” of the Gentiles has simply been viewed as a predominantly Japhethite phenomenon. This view is illustrated in-text by the Apostles’ comparative interactions with the Bereans and the Ethiopian, both previously mentioned: The Bereans are genuinely commended for their direct searches of the scripture while the (clearly literate) Ethiopian is asked by a dubious Phillip, “Do you understand what you’re reading?”(Acts 8:30)
By and large, the New Testament chronicles the unique receptivity of the Gospel on the part Japhethites (Europeans) specifically. This is exactly what we would expect to see if we take Genesis chapter 9 (as Christians always have) to single out Japheth’s line particularly as recipients of the Kingdom. By contrast, it is wholly incongruous and in no small measure unsettling to those who deny kin-based nation theory, which is to say, the post civil rights era churches.
But lest anyone suppose it born of a self-serving inclination on the part of the author, I submit to the reader that this idea of God’s foreordination of certain families and certain nations be no novelty of sheer personal biases. The bible teaches that such a division was primordially instituted between the Sethites and Cainites. One line was covenantally blessed, the other cursed. This division is punctuated by the hand of God in His setting of a “mark” upon Cain—whether this “mark” was a heritable trait or not deserves its own article but suffice it to say that God Himself set men apart by certain observable physical characteristics and by families—this much is beyond argument.
As expected, we see continuity throughout the entirety of the Old Testament on this point. Noah would prophecy concerning the separate nations that his sons were to sire respectively; but after the Shemites, Japhethites and Hamites resolved amongst themselves to contravene the Lord’s decree concerning his explicit tripartite division of humanity He would forcibly separate them “in their families, in their tribes and in their nations”.
God called Abraham to be holy (separate); as such he permits his son Isaac to wed only one of his kinswomen. Isaac would later follow suit, allowing his son Jacob to marry none but kindred.
This concept is perhaps made most plain in the “choseness” of Israel as nation. God had at that time revealed himself singularly to one ethnicity, to nearly the complete exclusion of all others.
Though he intends it as an indictment, R. B. Theime aids my case when he says that “Calvinism is inherent Racism.”(See Soldiers of God) He rightly deduces that the claim made by the Reformed Faith that God chooses both those to whom the Gospel goes as well as those who are able to receive it means that God has plainly chosen European Man as the foremost historical recipient of the Kingdom of heaven. The biblical notion of Providence carries as its consequence the fact that God elected to bless certain races over others whom, by contrast, He cursed. It means that God ultimately made Japhethites more receptive than the lines of Shem and Ham. While this fact ought not give anyone cause for boasting (we certainly in no way earned God’s blessings) neither can it be ignored. It is historical. It is scriptural. It is factual. Though we can distinguish between them, we cannot separate them: Europe and the Faith are inextricably linked.
Remarkable essay. I look forward to more of your fine work.
Many thanks Scoreboard. I likewise hope that more of your work is forthcoming. The White Picket Fence was a favorite stop of mine.
Nice work, EW. Your depth of thought reminds me of CWNY.
http://cambriawillnotyield.blogspot.com/
Appreciate your work as always.
God bless,
Laurel
That’s quite a compliment Laurel. Thank you very much.
[…] Providence: Cultural & Biological Part I […]
[…] Providence: Cultural & Biological Part I […]