Responding to Racism in the Church
It cannot be denied that there has been a small, yet growing trend in the church in recent years for some young men to embrace racist views. They go by various names: Kinists, Racialists, Race Realists, Familyism and use terms like “Natural Community.” These views may be summarized as a belief that different races have not only different physical characteristics, but moral, spiritual, and intellectual qualities which are immutable and that the white race or races have superior qualities and therefore they oppose interracial marriage and insist that society and the church ought to be governed by those whom they claim have superior intellectual, moral, and spiritual qualities. In short: white supremacy.
The re-emergence of such views is shocking, yet it probably shouldn’t be. As Jeremiah 17:9 states, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Since there is nothing new under the sun, it shouldn’t surprise us when old sins rear their heads once again. Yet the church has to ask where this has come from. Broadly speaking, the answer is always the sinful human heart which above all else is proud and hateful. The most fundamental sin of natural man is pride: the desire to exalt self against God and over others, and when it comes to our neighbors, the testimony of Genesis is that after sin entered into the world, mankind immediately descended to hatred and murder.
To be more specific, if I had to point my finger at any one thing in our own society, I would point it the embrace of wokeism and Critical Race Theory by churches following the George Floyd protests and Black Lives Matter movements of 2020. It’s one thing when the world tells young white men that they have to be quiet and repent of their white-ness, but it’s another entirely when the church, which is supposed to uphold truth, follows suit and embraces worldly ideologies in an attempt to appear relevant or sympathetic. It is not a stretch to imagine that this has likely incensed some spirits, throwing gasoline on hearts that already have that sinful disposition we all have to pride and hate. One young minister who was deposed and excommunicated from my own denomination cited the fact that when he was a student at Westminster Seminary, they had affinity groups on campus for racial minorities, so why couldn’t he as a white man?
If there is any young man reading this who wrestles with such views, let me begin by exhorting you with the words of 1 Peter 3:9, “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called.” To be a Christian means that we do not respond to the world (nor to a church that has embraced worldly philosophies!) with the weapons, philosophies, and tactics of the world. We do not respond to racism with more racism. I remember being angered when I first read the claims of Critical Race Theory in 2020, telling my wife that such a worldview is going to push young men into the open arms of neo-Nazis. Naively, I did not understand how this would also tempt men in the church.
Although I cannot address every claim Kinists make, I do want to respond to one root claim of theirs, as this highlights faulty views of scripture, and then some of their methodology. One of the arguments that first needs to be addressed is the “curse of Canaan[1],” referring to Genesis 9:25-27. Following the sin of Ham in 9:22, Noah pronounces a blessing upon his two sons Shem & Japheth, but a curse upon Ham’s son Canaan. This raises the question of why there is a curse upon Ham’s son Canaan, and not Ham himself considering that he is the one who sinned against his father. Notably, this is actually a point made by Kinists, such as Mr. Samuel Ketcham, who was recently deposed and excommunicated by the RPCNA. In his article, “Race and Noah,” Ketcham argues that the curse actually fell upon Ham and all his descendants, who are cursed by God to be subservient to the rest of humanity. Thus, Kinists seek to find theological support for their belief of the inferiority of black people, mixed-race people, and other minorities.
However, this argument fails in a number of ways. First, the text explicitly states that Noah cursed Canaan, not Ham and all his descendants. “He said, ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’ 26 He also said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. 27 May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.” The point that Canaan is the subject of the curse is repeated three times.
In order to support this desire that not simply Canaan, but Ham and all of his descendants are cursed, Ketcham reinterprets the passage stating, “It seems likely that Ham had Canaan first and Noah wanted to make clear that the merits and demerits of his sons would pass on to his offspring. Thus, he mentions Canaan’s name, indicating that his descendants would be included in the curse. The others were not born yet, but the curse would fall on them also.”[2] This reading goes against the births listed in the table of nations found in Genesis 10:6, “The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan.” Here,Canaan is listed last because he was the youngest son of Ham. The typical ordering for children is chronological. Ketcham even concedes on this point, “My reasons here are a bit speculative…” To reconcile this disparity, Ketcham argues that Canaan was listed last in the table of nations on account of his depravity.
This argument fails in light of other similar texts. The reason why Ham is named in 9:22 as “Ham, the father of Canaan” is not because Canaan was his firstborn, but as a primer for the curse that is to be pronounced only three verses later. Without this statement of family relations, the reader would not even understand who Canaan is in relation to Ham at this point and the curse would be a non-sequitur. Then, one must also consider the sitz im leben. As Moses recorded and delivered this account to the sons of Israel, they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land and dispossessing the Canaanites, through conquest and subjugation. This curse, uttered centuries earlier, was about to be brought to fruition.
A helpful comparison can be made to Genesis 46, where the genealogies of the tribes of Israel are listed. Concerning Judah, Genesis 46:12 reads, “The sons of Judah: Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah (but Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan); and the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.” This is a helpful comparison because Judah’s first two sons are explicitly stated in Genesis 38 to be wicked in the sight of the LORD and are subsequently put to death by the LORD. While Er’s sin is not recorded, Onan’s is and is even sexual in nature, yet when they are listed in the genealogies, they are not named last on account of their wickedness, but first and second because that is their birth order. Unless we have explicit textual reasons stating otherwise (which we don’t), we should understand that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. This would make the curse most fitting since the nature of Ham’s sin, whatever it was, was a violation of Noah by his youngest son. Since God had already pronounced blessing upon Noah and his sons in 9:1, which prohibited Noah from cursing Ham whom God had already blessed, the curse fitting fell on Ham’s youngest son, who may have also shared in his father’s perversions.
Most significant is the point already noted: what scripture explicitly says. Noah cursed Canaan, a point that the Holy Spirit repeats three times. At a certain point one has to wonder if a reader is interested in reading what scripture actually says, or in employing hermeneutical acrobats to impose one’s worldview onto the text.
One larger issue to be considered is the interpretive grid through which Genesis 9:25-27 is to be understood. In short, should this text be understood as redemptive-historical or political-ethnic? This is a point taken up by O. Palmer Robertson in a scholarly article written for JETS on this very text addressing this issue. Robertson writes, “do the words of Noah anticipate from a secularistic perspective the ways in which certain peoples and nationalities will relate to one another across the centuries? Or, rather, do these prophetic words outline the parameters for participation in the redemptive program that God has designed for delivering people from the curse of sin?”[3]
Reading the whole passage it’s observable that Noah does not actually bless Shem. Rather, he blessed “the LORD, the God of Shem.” First, this is notable in that after Noah exited the ark, the covenant name of the LORD is only invoked in two places for the rest of the account of Noah: when Noah offered up sacrifices to the LORD and the blessing upon Shem. This invocation of the divine name would indicate that this blessing/curse combination concerns the LORD of the covenants, that this text is redemptive-historical, not a prophecy of the political futures of certain nations.
Second, when we consider why Shem is blessed, it is precisely because he has the faith of his father, faith in the covenant-keeping LORD who by grace delivered him safely through the floodwaters of judgment. The LORD is “The LORD, the God of Shem.” This unfolds in redemptive history in that Abraham is a descendant of Shem. When his seed are further blessed, the LORD even makes it clear in subsequent generations that the descendants of Abraham have been blessed, not because of any political or ethnic reasons, but because of his covenant purposes and promises (Deut. 7:7-8). When Israel is blessed and victorious, it’s never because of political shrewdness or ethnic superiority, but because they have the LORD. So just as the blessing is rightly understood through a redemptive-historical grid, this is the same way we should read the curse.
What then is the curse placed upon Canaan? Robertson writes, “it is the curse of being separated from the redemptive activity of God that is implied in the passage. The Lord of the covenant will be the God of some of the descendants of Noah, bringing blessing to their lives. At the same time, others of the descendants of Noah will be cursed by this same God.”[4] There were many nations guilty of idolatry and various other sins on the Earth, but it was particularly the Canaanites who were to fall under the curse of destruction as Israel took hold of the Promised Land. Just like the inhabitants of the Earth in Noah’s day, the Canaanites serve as an example of the judgment that will fall upon those who do not put their faith in the LORD, the God of Shem.
Notably, Ketcham does reference a redemptive-historical grid for understanding Genesis 9. Yet while this is mentioned in passing, this grid takes a backseat to his political-ethnic thrust for understanding Noah’s curse and blessings. It demonstrates profound inconsistency to understand the blessing in redemptive terms, but the curses as political-ethnic. He views this text as giving explanation for why Hannibal lost the battle of Carthage in 202 BC, why Muslim invaders were able to sweep across North Africa in the 7th century, and why Russia and America in the 21st century are so geographically large. Such a view of prophecy admittedly reminds me of those over-eager Dispensationalists who tried to identify the locusts of Revelation 9 as Soviet attack helicopters. Ketcham believes this to be legitimate, writing, “History is key to interpreting prophecy. Try understanding the prophecies of the book of Daniel without knowing the history of the Medes, Persians, Greeks and Romans.”
This illustration is helpful, albeit not in the way that Ketcham wants. When Daniel was shown visions of beasts, kings of the south and kings of the north, the purpose was never simply to foretell the future of world history. The purpose of these prophecies was always connected to the LORD’s redemptive purposes. When God’s old covenant people were wondering if they had been abandoned by the LORD and if his purposes for them still stood, they could read Daniel and be reminded that God’s promises for them were still trustworthy. Kingdoms would rise and kingdoms would fall, but the LORD’s purposes for his covenant people were sure. They could trust upon the LORD and walk with him in faith, even as the world shifted around them and these prophecies pointed to this reliability. Significantly, the heart of the purpose of Daniel’s prophecies was not ultimately to foretell political future, but so that God’s people could know that his covenant promises still endured. Those kingdoms and everything that transpired in subsequent history were subservient to the LORD’s plan of redemption, which was the inauguration of the kingdom of the one like “a son of man.” Yes, history is necessary for the understanding of prophecy, but prophecy is redemptive-historical in nature because the focal-point of history is what God is doing in Jesus Christ, creating a new redeemed humanity, the church, from every tribe, nation, and tongue. The fact that Ketcham prioritizes a political-ethnic hermeneutical grid can be seen in a statement in another article of his, wherein he writes, “White Christians must consider current trends in the world and their nation, when weighing the importance of world missions.”[5] A grid that wants to read prophecy as political-ethnic demonstrates a lack of understanding of the heart of scripture and the LORD’s purposes, and a belief that Christ’s Great Commission need to be de-prioritized to address the problem of “white replacement” reveals a profound worldly-mindedness.
This highlights a fundamental error found that runs through the writings of many Kinists: they replace God’s covenants with race. For Kinists, many Old Testament prohibitions against marrying outside Israel are read not as prohibiting marrying outside the faith, but along racial lines, or some will simply claim that it’s both/and. Even if a token nod is given to covenant theology, it is done so in a way so that covenant texts can still also be applied racially, which they do in their opposition to interracial marriage. This is not an option. As the New Testament gives us the clearest understanding of the Old, such prohibitions are summed up in 1 Corinthians 7:39, “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” The Kinist will respond that such an argument is facile because Paul is not giving the fullest requirement of marriage; for instance, Paul’s statement does not include Biblical prohibitions against incest. Yet this objection is baseless. The Biblical standard for marriage, including degrees of consanguinity, is already underscored in Leviticus 18. The fact that Deuteronomy 7:3 concerns faith and not race is clearly demonstrated (in addition to the examples of Rahab & Ruth) in Deuteronomy 7:4-5, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,
4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. 5 But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire” (emphasis added).God explicitly tells his people why they are forbidden from marrying the people of the land: it’s about faith.
One matter that Ketcham and other Kinists repeatedly reference is something orthodox Christians need to face: There have been many Christians over the centuries who either held to racist views or who at some point said and/or wrote prejudicial remarks. We need to come to terms with this.
Reading Kinist literature, it quickly becomes apparent that appealing to authority is one of the primary arguments used to support their views. The other pillar found in Kinist literature is an appeal to selectively picked modern test scores and crime rates. As Mark Twain once famously said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” These two pillars of Kinist “theology” are intertwined. It is notable at this point that Kinists prefer to call themselves “Christian Race Realists.” This title is significant because from the 17th to early 20th centuries there was a popular belief in academic circles in what was known as “scientific race realism,” a now debunked pseudo-science that was anything but scientific. Advocates of scientific race realism engaged in everything from measuring nose-widths to “craniology,” where the slopes of foreheads were compared in order to determine that there were distinct races and then establish a racial hierarchy. It is fitting that Kinists prefer to call themselves Christian Race Realists because their own selective “research” mirrors that of this long debunked pseudo-science.
What does “scientific race realism” have to do with our theological forebears? Very simply, this was the academic environment in which theologians from the 17th to early 20th centuries also lived. Ketcham and others are quick to employ as many quotes as they can from historic figures to bolster their beliefs. Some of these can be demonstrated to be a twisting of authorial intent, but this cannot be said for every reference. It is argued that Thornwell/Hodge/Machen/other held to this view, so if you reject Kinists as heretical, then you have to reject them as well. This appeal to authority is the Kinist’s primary argument.
This argument also fails. An appeal to authority is not a logical argument. Scripture is the only rule for our faith and practice, not the traditions, writings, or sinful sayings of church fathers, nor modern fallible attempts to measure man. As a pastor, I must warn anyone reading this that it is never wise nor spiritually honest to attempt to justify oneself by appealing to actions or views of others. How many an adulterer has sought to justify himself or diminish his own infidelity by appealing to the sin of King David? “If he committed adultery and was a man after God’s own heart, then I can be too! How dare you condemn me!” Seeking to compare one’s own sins or righteousness to those of others around us for self-justification is the heart of a Pharisee (Luke 18:9-11). It should never be forgotten that judgment is not on a curve. Every man or woman will stand before God on his own and like children we cannot claim, “But he did it!”
Nevertheless, we still must reckon with the fact that some of our fathers in the faith did embrace sinful views. Whenever we read of the sins of men who go before us, it’s always a good reminder that only Christ can be our true hero. Everyone else in life will inevitably disappoint us. When we read of historic men of faith, this always has to be done with an understanding of the context of history. Ironically, Kinists make the very same mistake woke cultural activists do when it comes to understanding historical figures: divorcing them from their context. Every man is a man of his times, influenced by the culture around him and that much more susceptible to the sins of his household and generation. We too are men of our times no doubt with glaring blind spots. Benjamin Morgan Palmer, for instance, said some horrible things, infamously in his Thanksgiving Day sermon that tragically served as a catalyst for the Civil War. But Rev. Palmer was also a man of his times, born in Charleston, South Carolina in 1818. He would have been exceptionally unique to be raised in this place and at this time and not have racist views. That doesn’t excuse his sin, but it does make it understandable. During this time, it was illegal in eight Southern states (including Palmer’s South Carolina) to teach slaves how to read and write, so we shouldn’t be surprised that the vast-majority of black men and women he encountered would have been uneducated and ignorant. If he’s going to take his views of humanity from observing what he saw around him, what other conclusion could he reach? This was also a time when “scientific race realism” was considered credible and the standard view of anthropology in academia. Palmer was sinfully wrong, yet also a man of his times. Understanding historical figures within their proper context helps us reckon with the fact that some of our heroes in the faith also followed the cultural sins around them, which is why I can still appeal to men Thornwell, Palmer, and Machen, but cannot have fellowship with modern Kinists. It is also notable that none of these historic men of faith were ever challenged in those views by the courts of the church to whom they were accountable. The same cannot be said of modern Kinists. Kinists eschew accountability, one of the very instruments God uses to discipline, correct, and sanctify his children, including in our thinking.
What’s the big problem with Kinism? It isn’t a denial of justification by faith alone or the deity of Christ, so is this really a matter to fight over and discipline those who persist in embracing it? Yes. As Westminster Confession of Faith XV.4 states, “As there is no sin so small, but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.” These views are sin and we cannot have fellowship with any who claim to profess Christ, yet refuse to repent of sin, especially when those sins have been highlighted and brought before the church to which we are accountable.
It will be objected that our standards never mention the word “racism,” yet neither do they include the expression “internet pornography” because neither were 17th century concepts. Nevertheless, they’re both bound up within our standards, just as the word ‘Trinity,’ while not found in the Bible, is Biblical.
I will simply highlight one of the embraced sins of Kinism, though there are others. Kinists explicitly violate the 5th commandment. Westminster Larger Catechism questions 131 & 132 state, “What are the duties of equals? The duties of equals are, to regard the dignity and worth of each other, in giving honor to go one before another; and to rejoice in each others’ gifts and advancement, as their own. What are the sins of equals? The sins of equals are, besides the neglect of the duties required, the undervaluing of the worth, envying the gifts, grieving at the advancement or prosperity one of another; and usurping preeminence one over another.”
Simply put, Kinists undervalue the worth and gifts of people of other races and usurp preeminence in their claims of superiority. At this point it will be objected by Kinists that they aren’t equal, except this is not a declaration one may simply make because one wants to think of himself as superior. God is the one who establishes the authority structures to which we must submit (e.g. governments over citizens, parents over children, church members submit to elders, wives submit to husbands). It is a sinful and proud grasping for self-exaltation that seeks out establishing new authority structures to which others must now submit and that happen to place me and others who look like me over others. Claims in this regard are then almost always rooted in yet more sin, lies about our neighbors and a readiness to receive lies about our neighbors.
The root sin behind it all is that chief of sins, pride because pride is all about seeking and pursuing self-exaltation. Pride is the heart-issue of those who wish to establish white-supremacy in the church and society. Pride is what keeps these men from having a teachable and corrigible spirit, denouncing as apostate the very denominations to whose discipline they once vowed submission. Proud is that spirit that screams that all of their teachers are wrong, that any place that does not agree is egalitarian[6], and that they alone are the true and only faithful left of the LORD. Yet it is the proud heart that God promises to tear down (Prov. 15:25) because nothing is more antithetical to submission to God than pride. It is the proud heart that refuses to value our neighbors as Christ commands us, “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself” (Phil. 2:3).
[1] Kinists refer to this text as the “Curse of Ham.” The supposed curse of Ham was frequently appealed to in the 19th century to justify slavery.
[2] https://samuelketcham.substack.com/p/race-and-noah-6
[3] Robertson, 182
[4] Ibid. 183
[5] https://samuelketcham.substack.com/p/race-and-grace-5
[6] Yes, Kinists call everyone who reject their views of white supremacy and racial inequality racial egalitarians, which they say leads to atheism.
