by Michael Armstrong
What is race? This is a difficult question to ask and an even harder one to answer, especially in the charged environment we find ourselves in today. In many ways it is a loaded question. Political correctness is deeply involved in a crusade against racism, be it real or perceived, which predicates itself on the notion that race exists and is a determining factor in society. Race in this instance clearly means biological traits, such as skin color, and of course it is along these lines that the average person would define race. Logical? Maybe, yet the intellectual community has sought to distance itself from such pedestrian conclusions.
Now the trend is to view race as a “social construct.” The term itself implies the possibility of deconstruction or reconstruction. This is not surprising considering the radical agenda of many who have attempted to co-opt this issue. It fits perfectly well with progressive ideas regarding gender, as if all life is some RPG where you can customize your character and everyone starts at level one. It’s absurd. No one chooses who, what, where, when or why they were born. Not any form of self mutilation you care to mention, from the color of Michael Jackson’s skin to Bruce Jenner’s bathroom preference, has any bearing on that reality. Now any physiological discussion is carefully pushed into the realms of ethnicity and ancestry.
In itself this can be helpful and somewhat justified by the increasingly diverse backgrounds of much of society. Putting any practical assessment of our differences off limits, as if it promotes racist sentiment, really could be said to have the opposite effect. It is intellectually demeaning to all concerned to assume that is the case. In essence, it says that our differences are so great, and our minds so small, that no such conversation could take place without the unjust aggrandizement of ourselves and kin. Is this really the case? Do not our similarities vastly outweigh our differences? However fashionable it may be to vilify the United States, a great many historical prejudices have been smoothed over inside its borders. Animosity between factions from different parts of Europe or Africa ceased to exist extremely quickly relative to how long they had persisted in the old world.
Under the guise of ancestry, science continues to maintain its tenuous romance with reality. It is telling that this is where many have to turn to find out anything about themselves other than what is obvious in the mirror. It is certainly a blessing to those whose link with the past has been broken by slavery, abandonment, or natural disaster. It can enrich life with an interest in history and culture, or even provide a sense of identity. Is that taboo? Can you only take satisfaction from your identity when you choose from one of Ben and Jerry’s 32 genders, or is it something grounding, edifying, and inherent in all of us?
Now a brief digression for a personal anecdote. A portion of my family had long maintained their Native American heritage. Why, exactly, is unclear but naturally, it was obvious. The nose! The brow! Those eyes! The spitting image of Sitting Bull, like his own son Spitting Bull. Such evidence is hard to refute. Then, with the rise in popularity of ancestry testing, their entire branch of the family was dealt a shocking blow. The percentage of their Native American heritage could not have been lower. It was absolutely zero! They were found to be the victims of their own Spaghetti Western when a large and previously unknown dose of Italian was discovered to be responsible for those formerly irrefutable features. Being an exceedingly good natured lot, this revelation elicited more hilarity than disappointment.
As a rule, the truth will set you free, but it will also humiliate you sometimes. Humility is a bit of a paradox in that it’s viewed positively when you possess it on your own but negatively when it is forced upon you. As in, “He is humble” vs “He was humiliated.” Yet it is a virtue we can all benefit from. Science, the systematic quest for knowledge and understanding, is not necessarily bad. Quite the opposite is true. It is only the artificial constraint to exclude God, to somehow justify things without Him, that has led to this perceived enmity.
Wisdom and knowledge are not the same thing. Vanity and pride have a way of subtly infecting our reasoning. Pure intentions can quickly become vested interests. Galileo’s theory that the earth revolved around the sun was deemed heresy by the Catholic Church and he was forced to recant. But why? Does a heliocentric solar system really contradict the truth of God or just the dogma of that time? Rather than display any of the humility or meekness taught by our Lord Jesus Christ, who they claimed to worship, they clung haughtily to their own error for the next 200 years.
For many, science has replaced religion, and certainly organized religion has done its part to drive men away. Science, speaking generally, is in grave danger of committing similar errors. A theory, long standing, cannot easily be set aside. The ego suffers, reputation suffers, and it’s not so good for the pocketbook either. No longer is science pushed forward by remarkably gifted individuals working largely on their own recognizance. For the most part we’ve come too far for that. It has long since become institutionalized, with all of the incumbent benefits and pitfalls, and is often devoted to its own traditions. Evidence of this is readily available.
How do these things fit together? The status quo would have you believe that faith is part of our racist past and science our brilliant future. Many are quick to allege that the Bible encourages racial hatred. There are many evil and divisive theories that claim to be based on scripture but this is simply not the case. Just like the allegations that the earth is flat or only 6000 years old, they are twisted interpretations or fragments that do not stand up to scrutiny. And what about science? Is it pure, squeaky clean knowledge or does it suffer from the same defects incumbent in human nature? You may be surprised to find that some of its recent past is as dark and vile as anything in history.
We will pass over the fact that even the most astute justifications for evolution begin with the familiar tale of the primordial soup and the lightning. So much assumption and speculation enter into the scenario that it defies the very definition of science. The function of the tide factors heavily into the earliest phases of evolution, yet every theory about how the moon came to be contains insurmountable difficulties. This is readily admitted in discussions of the moon’s formation, an interesting study in itself considering its scientifically inexplicable quandaries and its prominent role in God’s calendar.
Darwin himself escapes much of the criticism heaped on contemporaries who gave racism a scientific basis. Part of this is due to his virtual deification among evolutionists. However, he did distance himself from some of the more heinous theories promoted by those who took his reasoning to the next level in later works. Nevertheless his theory of natural selection was widely used to support the superiority of one race over another. It says as much in the full title of his book: On the Origin of Species (that’s the part everyone is familiar with but it continues) by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. It was published in 1859, just two years before the beginning of the American Civil War. Any justification for the continuation of slavery was seized upon by its proponents and such a scientific one proved irresistible.
For many, Darwin did not go far enough. A widely accepted scientific viewpoint of the time was called polygenism. It asserted that the different races of mankind evolved separately, from entirely different groups of apes, thus explaining the differences between races and possibly gratifying the egos of the writers. There was much argument as to whether mankind is comprised of a single or several different species. Even those who rejected polygenism held to a hierarchical classification of race.
Which race do you think was placed in the top spot? Aryans. To a modern reader the term conjures an instant association with Nazi Germany, and rightly so. On such account it has since ceased to be used, just as a great deal of “science” regarding race was cast aside following World War II. They dropped it so quickly you would think they felt guilty or something… Famous author H.G. Wells’ Outline of History uses it extensively, and applies it to more groups of people than you might assume. There are many repugnant ideas propounded in this work, but it is interesting in that it seeks to represent the scientific consensus of its day. Much of what it proposes on evolution is laughable and even more is admittedly speculation. It deals harshly with religion. If it has redeeming value it is the chronological recounting of recorded history, which is undeniably a gargantuan undertaking.
Quoting from the third edition, revised in 1929, Wells asks, “What sort of life did these prehistoric Aryans lead, these Nordic Aryans who were the chief ancestors of most Europeans and most white Americans and European colonists of to-day, as well as of the Armenians, Persians, and high-caste Hindus?” If this seems a generously broad application of race keep in mind that it claims many of the major advancements and accomplishments of man for itself. Everything from common law to the Iliad of Homer to Gautama Buddha is supposedly “Aryan.” The book is considered mild (on this subject at least) for the time in which it was published and was actually banned in Nazi Germany.
The dark theories and practices of this evil regime are well known, as is the scientific basis they claimed supported it. Races were ranked according to their “relative purity” or branded “subhuman,” a term frequently used in evolutionary theories of man. Their “racial hygiene” programs are sickening to consider. The end result was genocide and a war so destructive that it marks a turning point in modern history. That is what it took to discredit the science behind the scenes as well. How many mistakes like this can the world afford? Germany is not the only nation to practice eugenics either. They just took it so far that the world had to recoil in horror.
Sadly, many theories of racial superiority persist. Is there a shortage of anti-Semitic conspiracies? No, you can hear all you want (and more) about the Ashkenazi, the Bolsheviks, the bankers, the synagogue of satan, and so on, all complete with unverifiable statistics and often with a downplaying of the holocaust in the same breath. The Nation of Islam taught that caucasians were bred by a mad scientist, a race of white devils. You can find all kind of aspersions on the origins of black people, even that they have the “Mark of Cain.” To blame the problems of the world on someone else, on a group other than your own, is convenient but it is hardly equitable or truthful. Rather, plainly stated, it’s nonsense. Similar prejudices can be found all over the world. If we do not hear of them it is because they don’t directly affect us.
We are one family. Mankind was created in the image of God. What color Adam and Eve were is really inconsequential. All the variations of race, all the potentials of pigment and feature contained in our first parents that have become dominant through separation, adaptation, and yes, through inbreeding could be wiped out in a very few generations and we would all be the color of the dirt out of which we are formed. Let that sink in. It is one thing to be interested or proud of your own heritage, in the struggles and accomplishments of your ancestors, and it is another thing entirely to wield it as some sign of inherent superiority.
The Jews in the time of Christ were reprimanded for their haughty pride. John the Baptist reprimanded them preemptively saying, “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” (Luke 3: 7-9)
Jesus likewise reproved His haughty contemporaries. John chapter 8 records, “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” Never in bondage? What about Egypt? What about Babylon? If they meant themselves specifically, what about Rome? The passage continues and they twice more cite their heritage through Abraham. They completely miss the overarching theme in scripture, evident in both John the Baptist’s and Jesus’ statements, about personal responsibility.
This is not a “New Testament” concept. The Exodus furnishes some good examples. When the angel of death passed over Egypt those who were spared painted blood around their doors. Protection was not afforded solely on account of being an Israelite, but according to obedience. When they left Egypt, a “mixed multitude” went with them. “And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle” (Exodus 12:37-38). Mentioned in the same verse as flocks and herds it is easy to read over, but any concordance plainly reveals that “mixed multitude” refers to people. Non-Israelitish people. The way the same Hebrew word is utilized in other scriptures makes this obvious. Can you blame them for their conviction after what they had witnessed?
Context further reveals that God has one law, one plan for all of mankind, available to all who will heed His warnings. “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you” (Exodus 12:48-49).
We often wonder at the stubbornness of the Israelites in the account of the Exodus, how they could rebel and lack faith after the wonders they had seen. Obviously the Egyptians employed tricks, pseudo-miracles, in their idolatrous ceremonies. Perhaps they were somewhat desensitized, used to seeing things they couldn’t understand. After 400 years they were thoroughly steeped in paganism.
Further consider Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, whom Israel blessed saying, “The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). He gave them a blessing beyond that of his other sons. Continuing in Genesis 49:26, “The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.”
These sons were born to Joseph in Egypt during the years of plenty. Being second only to Pharaoh, he was made to marry according to his station. “And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:45). “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction” (Genesis 41:50-52).
Not only were Joseph’s sons half Egyptian, they were closely related to one of the most prominent pagan priests in all Egypt. How do you think they were raised? What sort of influence must that have had, not just on themselves but on their brethren and descendants? Yet they were still favored, given promises by God that have been a blessing to the whole earth. The Church of God has been accused of racism for teaching about Ephraim and Manasseh and the “lost” ten tribes of Israel (read Europe and America in Prophecy). The point is missed entirely. The goal is to understand why the world has developed the way it has and how this fits with Bible prophecy. To twist it into some sort of inherent superiority is to fall into a trap of vanity that has caught man time and again.
Miriam and Aaron fell into it at their own peril. It is recounted in Numbers chapter 12. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it” (1-2). They were called to the Tabernacle and thoroughly reprimanded for their impetuousness. Miriam, who must have started it being mentioned first and punished more, was temporarily leprous and banished from camp for seven days. “And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned” (Numbers 12:49). It was actually a sin for which they had to repent. Not sure what sin is? Read 1 John 3:4.
When the Israelites were warned against intermarrying with those who were to be driven out of the land of Canaan, what was trying to be prevented? “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly” (Deuteronomy 7:4-5). This is the error Solomon fell into, idolatry on account of an unconverted spouse. We all know the story of David and Bathsheba, Solomon’s mother, whose first husband Uriah (a Hittite) David caused to be killed. Uriah was a righteous man. Was Bathsheba also a Hittite? We can only speculate.
Many of Solomon’s wives were unconverted. He allowed them their shrines and idols and it destroyed him and the kingdom. After building the temple he prayed, “Moreover concerning a stranger, that is not of thy people Israel, but cometh out of a far country for thy name’s sake; (For they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched out arm;) when he shall come and pray toward this house; Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for: that all people of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name” (1 Kings 8:41-43).
He failed to continue in righteousness though God warned him what the outcome would be. “And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded. Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant” (1 Kings 11:9-11).
God only has one plan for all of mankind. He wants the same thing, the same humility and righteousness, from each and every one of us. There is only one Savior to whom we can all go for forgiveness. Our race, our heritage, may have resulted in temporary wealth and privilege or poverty and struggle. Either way it is transient and physical. Life is supposed to be about so much more than that. The Bible makes this abundantly clear, but the world has rejected God’s plan and God’s truth. It boasts itself in its own knowledge. It blames God for the evil man has created. Without Him, this life is all there is. That’s what science preaches. Therefore what you get and have becomes overly important. The gratification of physical desire becomes the pinnacle of existence, its denial the ultimate evil. We are being manipulated in many ways. Man fancies he is God, saving himself from injustice. It’s vanity off the charts. Grievance is being added to grievance, hatred is being used to justify hatred. If your ancestors suffered cruel bondage does a money payment or some luxury goods somehow make that better? Gucci heals all wounds or something? Talk about placing a dollar value on someone’s life, it’s revolting. Furthermore it will not work!
Western nations aren’t the only ones in a flurry to redress historical racial grievances. Zimbabwe is now paying reparations for reparations! Nor is this their first attempt to right the wrongs of the past. The country itself came about in this manner. The long reign of Robert Mugabe especially encouraged such actions amid much ululation. He began as the first Prime Minister of Zimbabwe in 1980, becoming the second President in 1987 (he succeeded Canaan Banana, who was later convicted and imprisoned for being a homosexual) in which role he continued until 2017 when his own party finally turned against him.
An avowed Marxist, Mugabe’s anti-colonialist policies reached their logical conclusion in the redistribution of land owned by white farmers. Though it began as “willing seller, willing buyer,” the slow rate of transfer eventually became an embarrassment. In the early 2000’s Mugabe goaded his supporters into a frenzied seizure of farms and land that in many cases turned deadly and destructive. The country’s food supply, economy, and foreign relations suffered tremendously.
The current government of Zimbabwe, still under the control of Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party, now believes the path to reconciliation lies in paying reparations to families whose property was confiscated or whose loved ones were murdered. Accordingly, a bill to distribute $3.5 Billion amongst approximately 4,500 farmers has recently been passed. The government has stressed that the compensation is not for the land that was taken, but for the improvements that were on it. Sadly, Zimbabwe cannot afford to pay for these reparations, something they have been very up front about. They hope that fund raising will cover the shortfall.
Racial hatred is being stoked all over the world. This is not God’s way or how the Bible instructs us to feel about one another. Whatever blame religion deserves for creating the status quo, and there is plenty to go around, it is for actions contradictory to the Book they should be following. Science deserves its fair share. Somehow that gets overlooked, seasoned with a little Marxism and served up as a solution. It’s hard to imagine a more unholy alliance, or a more ironic philosophy to embrace to combat racism.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto with Friedrich Engels. They were fully in step with the leading theories of their time. Here are some quotes that might undermine their “woke” hero status. In one letter from Marx to Engels, he uses the n-word repeatedly in reference to someone who wouldn’t lend him money and says, “Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product.” In Marx’s The Poverty of Philosophy he wrote, “Without slavery, North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal community.” Also, “Abolish slavery and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.” Could he have been more wrong? Have not his theories proven totally destructive in practice?
Many argue against God because the world is so full of evil and violence. Is this not what man has chosen? Rejecting God from the very beginning, man has gone his own way and received what was due accordingly. It is repentance, acknowledging your own errors, that is the first step towards reconciliation with God. To continue requires obedience. Will we listen to God, who exhorts us to peace and unity, or man who goads us into hatred and violence?
Let’s not go any further down this path of hatred and destruction. Let’s forgive as we all need to be forgiven before it’s too late. No payment can compensate for murder, no amount of theft or violence or statue toppling will lead to reconciliation. The past is unchangeable. We can add grievance to grievance and live in it forever if we so chose, but it will not bring us justice, and it will not bring us peace.
