Christian Race Realism, part 4: History
17 July 2024
Introduction
Having considered what nature had to teach concerning race, we will now consider history, not as in the previous article simply to observe facts and draw conclusions from them, but here with a more normative purpose, i.e. that historical answers to questions of race might better help us answer the same questions today.
History is vast, and our knowledge and space limited, so of the many studies that could have been illuminating in this matter, we have chosen to narrow our scope to the history of the United States of America. We will first look at an overview of this history, and then focus on the opinions of certain Christians who lived at various points in it.
1. The History of Race in America
From well before their independence the thirteen American colonies were decidedly white. They were ruled by white Britain, and the large majority of their population were native English, with a minority of various other whites, especially Scots and Irish, but also Dutch, French, German, and Swedish. This white population recognized and defended a firm contrast between themselves and racial minorities that lived near and among them, namely American Indians, and African slaves.
We will look at the relationship with Indians, but will specifically focus on the Africans. They were subject to the whites as their slaves, and the small population of freed blacks joined the slaves in a similar subordinate relation to the white population. The relation between the races was clearly and distinctly that of superior and inferior, and this relation was strictly maintained by law.
Consider for example, “An act for the better preventing of a spurious and mixed issue,” passed in Massachusetts in 1705, which contained two provisions. First,
If any negro or mulatto shall presume to smite or strike any person of the English or other Christian nation, such negro or mulatto shall be severely whipped, at the discretion of the justices before whom the offender shall be convicted.
And second,
None of her Majesty's English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation, within this province, shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto; nor shall any person, duly authorised to solemnize marriage, presume to join any such in marriage, on pain of forfeiting the sum of fifty pounds.
As to the second provision, such marriage laws were by no means isolated, rare, or short-lived in America. The first laws against miscegenation or race-mixing in marriage were set in place in the colonies as early as the 1660s. Eventually the large majority of the present U.S. states enacted them, and most were not overturned until the 20th century.
(Graphic from here.)
When the colonies sought independence from Britain, the relation between whites and blacks did not change. Many make much of the phrase in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal,” but this cannot be interpreted as a statement of racial egalitarianism. Consider the explanation of it given in the 1857 Supreme Court ruling, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which declared that blacks were not, nor intended to be, citizens of the United States:
It is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted ...
They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race, which by common consent, had been excluded from civilized Governments…. The unhappy black race were separated from the white by indelible marks, and laws long before established.
The 1789 U.S. Constitution confirms this interpretation. In it, “We the people,” represented entirely by white signatories, established the constitutional government in order to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” which posterity naturally would all be white. Moreover, America’s first immigration law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, clearly enforced the nation’s white identity, as a candidate for naturalization was required to be, besides “a person of good character,” also “a free white person.”
As is well-known, relations between whites and blacks in America began to change in the 19th century. Though Virginia preceded any Northern state, and also Britain, in abolishing the slave trade, black slavery itself was more widely used and defended in the South. This became a notable occasion for Southern secession in 1861, and the bloody war that followed. The conquest by the North in 1865 meant the immediate abolition of slavery (in the 13th Amendment), and an ensuing lengthy effort to make the legal status of blacks equal to that of whites, in the passing of the Civil Rights Act (1866), the 14th Amendment declaring “all persons born or naturalized” in the U.S. to be citizens (1868), and the 15th Amendment forbidding disenfranchisement “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (1870). Compared to what we saw above, these changes were a total revolution for race relations in America, at least in terms of civil law.
The process of attempting to impose this new legal racial order upon the South, called Reconstruction, was not entirely successful. The South resisted by passing the so-called “Jim Crow” laws as early as the 1870s. These laws provided for various forms of legal segregation between whites and blacks, and they were upheld under the provision “separate but equal” in the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson.
But the egalitarian revolution was by no means over. Decades of agitation against the remnant of historic American race realism ensued, which resulted in the end of legal segregation. This happened officially in public schools by the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, and despite years of coordinated “Massive Resistance” that followed, it was eventually imposed by force. This was notably evident in the Ole Miss Riot of 1962, in which President Kennedy sent 30,000 troops to enforce the enrollment of the first black student at the University of Mississippi. The remnants of legal segregation were then dismantled by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And to bring our history full circle, the three-hundred-year history of laws against inter-racial marriage in America was ended by the 1967 Supreme Court decision Loving v. Virginia.
2. Christian Race Realism in America
The facts above should not be a matter of dispute, but how they ought to be interpreted has been a source of continual controversy. In this controversy we maintain that the right and Christian view was that originally held at our nation’s founding, embraced by its majority white and Christian population, and reflected in its laws, some of which we saw persisted for centuries, even through enormous political upheavals.
We have already made arguments from Scripture and nature for this opinion, and we intend soon to clear it from objections and apply it further. But here we want to call upon the testimony of historic Christians in America in order to confirm it. We will consider six men over four centuries, and will find them speaking largely with one voice.
John Eliot
John Eliot (c. 1604–1690), an English Puritan who moved to Boston, earned the name “Apostle to the Indians” for his diligent mission work among the Algonquians. He painstakingly learned the Massachusett language, adapted it to a written alphabet, wrote a grammar for it, and translated the entire Bible into it. The Lord blessed his labors, and he was able to establish for the “praying Indians,” not only their own churches, but also their own towns, fourteen in number, the government of which, by Eliot’s instruction, was based on Exodus 18.
We would note two things from this example. First, such labors presume real inequality between the white man and the Indian. If this were not the case, it would be the height of arrogance for a white missionary to cross an ocean, settle in a wilderness, and insist on teaching its inhabitants an entirely new religion, as well as an entirely new civil polity. However, Eliot was not arrogant. Rather, he was kind, full of compassion, and of faith in Jesus Christ, who came to save lost sinners. Cotton Mather expresses the national inequality which was presumed in this international mission when he praises Eliot’s love and faith (quoted here):
To think of raising a number of these hideous creatures unto the elevations of our holy religion, must argue more than common or little sentiments in the undertaker; but the faith of an Eliot could encounter it.
Second, Eliot’s labors to serve another race did not require the mixing of his own race with theirs. He judged it best to keep the praying Indians separate, not only ecclesiastically, but also geographically and politically. We note that the same Eliot in 1689 did stipulate in a donation to a school in Roxbury that it should instruct the town’s white children “together with such negroes or Indians as may or shall come.” But this does not necessarily oppose race realism. Better taken, it underlines a point we will make later, that prudent maintenance of racial difference does not require the same form of racial segregation in every circumstance.
Jonathan Edwards
The famous preacher and theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) himself also served for a few years as a missionary to Indians. But we would focus here on how he considered African slaves (a topic considered from an egalitarian perspective here). Edwards’ parents owned one slave, and Edwards himself owned more than one. He wrote a brief defense of a local fellow minister whose congregation was denouncing him for slave-owning. In his other writings we see various qualifications of his use and defense of African slavery: that the slave trade itself was condemnable for its cruelty, and that Europeans and Africans, though not temporal equals, are equally to be called to faith in Christ, who as the Savior of sinners from all nations, “Condescends to poor negroes.” In proof of this his congregation in Northampton did admit nine Africans to full communicant membership, together with some Indians, again showing that even in a context where distinctions among races are recognized and legally enforced, prudence does not require entire racial separation in every sphere, in every circumstance.
James Henley Thornwell
In coming to the 19th century we meet the Southern Presbyterians. Many know the godly testimony of the praying Presbyterian deacon and war hero, General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. We will speak here of two ministers who were prominent in his Presbyterian church. First is James Henley Thornwell (1812–1862), renowned preacher, theologian, professor, president of South Carolina College, and defender of the Southern Presbyterians in debates over ecclesiology with Princeton Seminary professor Charles Hodge.
Relevant to the topic of race, we commend his sermon “The Rights and Duties of Masters,” preached in 1850 at the dedication of church building erected in Charleston, S.C. “for the benefit and instruction of the coloured population,” as well as his “Report on Slavery,” written in light of the growing international opposition to Southern slavery, for “explaining the position of Southern Christians, and vindicating their right to the confidence, love, and fellowship of all who everywhere call upon the name of our common Master.” In these he not only speaks on race and slavery, but also condemns abolitionism as a form of atheism, spelling the ruin of all true religion and good government.
Passing by those works, here we will focus on the “Address of the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America to All the Churches of Jesus Christ Throughout the Earth” (here, p. 531), which Thornwell penned, and which was adopted unanimously as the manifesto of the newly founded PC (CSA), after it was forced to withdraw from its prior union with Northern Presbyterians, when their formerly united church required its ministers to profess loyalty to the Northern Federal government. As the Southern church was marked by slaveholding, the address includes a brief defense of the lawfulness of slavery, and the right of slaveholders to be church members without censure. It asks,
Shall our names be cast out as evil, and the finger of scorn pointed at us, because we utterly refuse to break our communion with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Moses, David, and Isaiah, with Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, with all the noble army of Confessors who have gone to glory from slave-holding countries and from a slave-holding Church, without ever having dreamed they were living in mortal sin, conniving at slavery in the midst of them? If so, we shall take consolation in the cheering consciousness that our Master has accepted us.
But closer to our purpose is its statement of the wholesome benefits for Africans themselves from the system of Southern slavery, namely that it brings them both salvation and civilization:
Indeed, as we contemplate their condition in the Southern States, and contrast it with that of their fathers before them, and that of their brethren, in the present day, in their native land, we cannot but accept it as a gracious Providence, that they have been brought in such numbers to our shores, and redeemed from the bondage of barbarism and sin. Slavery, to them, has certainly been over-ruled for the greatest good. It has been a link in the wondrous chain of Providence, through which many sons and daughters have been made heirs of the heavenly inheritance. The Providential result is, of course, no justification, if the thing is intrinsically wrong; but it is certainly a matter of devout thanksgiving, and no obscure intimation of the will and purpose of God, and of the consequent duty of the Church. We cannot forbear to say, however, that the general operation of the system is kindly and benevolent; it is a real and effective discipline, and without it, we are profoundly persuaded that the African race in the midst of us can never be elevated in the scale of being. As long as that race, in its comparative degradation, co-exists side by side with the white, bondage is its normal condition.
Note three important conclusions from this quote. First, the Southern Presbyterians gratefully recognized that slavery had been an occasion to the slaves themselves of enormous good, especially that of salvation. Second, they held out hope that Africans could be further Christianized and civilized under the benevolent tutelage of their white masters. But third, they knew until such racial improvement happened to a sufficient degree, the slavery of blacks to whites would remain a condition appropriate to the nature of both races.
Robert Lewis Dabney
We could say many things to introduce Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898), pastor, professor, polemicist, theologian, architect, and chief of staff to Stonewall Jackson. But it will suffice to allow B. B. Warfield (though no ally of Dabney on matters of race) to praises his virtues:
Those who knew him best loved him most. His career was a distinguished one; his contributions to the theological sciences are of the first order; his services to the Presbyterian Churches are inestimable: may not only his memory remain green, but his influence be increased through the coming years!
Among many other contributions, this distinguished theologian manfully defended race realism. A key work is his 1867 Defence of Virginia, in which he vindicates the recently defeated Southern cause in the matter of slavery, arguing at length from history, law, Old Testament, New Testament, ethics, and economics, and carefully demolishing objections, many of which are often raised today. Like Edwards did, he condemns the evils of the slave trade, while arguing that slavery itself is lawful, not just in the abstract, but in the concrete, in the lately abolished American slavery of Africans. And like Thornwell, Dabney condemns abolitionism as atheistic rebellion, akin to the Jacobinism of the French Revolution.
To touch directly on the racial teaching of the work, consider this prophetic warning from his conclusion, as to how the triumph of abolitionism will bring the calamitous dissolution of racial difference:
Calhoun, and other Southern statesmen, with a sagacity which every day confirms, had forewarned us, that when once abolition by federal aggression came, these other sure results would follow: that the same greedy lust of power which had meddled between masters and slaves, would assuredly, and for the stronger reason, desire to use the political weight of the late slaves against their late masters: that having enforced a violent emancipation, they would enforce, of course, negro suffrage, negro eligibility to office, and a full negro equality: that negro equality thus theoretically established would be practical negro superiority: that the tyrant section, as it gave to its victims, the white men of the South, more and more causes of just resentment, would find more and more violent inducements to bribe the negroes, with additional privileges and gifts, to assist them in their domination: that this miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we believe that “God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,” we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race, stamped with all the feebleness of the hybrid, and incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginian freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South.
Note his forceful articulation of points we have already made in our definition and defense of race realism. Note also his forceful application of them, in his rejection of miscegenation with disgust and horror. Modern egalitarians will hardly bear to read his words, and may call them the ravings of a madman. But they are not. They are the sober judgment of a pious theologian, representing the consensus of the hearts, the habits, and the laws of an entire Christian people.
To understand how Southerners applied these principles in church, it is worth noting another work by Dabney, a transcript of a speech he gave in 1867 to the Presbyterian Synod of Virginia, entitled “Ecclesiastical Relation of Negroes,” or “Against the Ecclesiastical Equality of Negro Preachers in Our Church, and Their Right to Rule over White Christians.” In it he applies a realistic assessment of the gifts of blacks, and of the present extreme racial tensions following the war, asserting it would not be fitting for black ministers to exercise rule over whites in church, and moreover, that black ministry to whites would effectively communicate black social equality with whites, and would therefore lead to the unthinkable result of racial amalgamation. He also deals thoroughly with objections, especially those made from the spiritual unity in Christ of black and white believers, which he affirms. His treatment of Galatians 3:28 (p. 12), a text often used by racial egalitarians today, is worthy of careful meditation. To give a good sense of the whole speech, we quote from his concluding summary (p. 15):
The universality of gospel blessings to all believers does not carry with it a universal right to church office, as was asserted. God has often restrained the latter, on grounds of class, or natural distinction, where he has conceded the former. God has given to his church discretion to restrain it for similar cause, in suitable unrevealed instances. The Church has in every age exercised this lawful discretion, for her own general edification. The case of the negroes among us presents just such an instance, where the wise exercise of the scriptural discretion is proper. For, as I have shown, the setting up of black men to rule white Presbyterians, is, on every account, not for the church's true edification.
Moreover, to see that in this matter he did not neglect the souls of black men, but sincerely desired their spiritual good, consider his response to the question, “What alternative do you propose?”:
I reply that I would first kindly invite and advise the black people to remain as they were, members of our churches, and under our instruction and church government. For I am well assured that this would prove best for their true interests. But if they will not be wise enough to agree to this, while I deplore their mistake, I would still attempt to do them all the good possible, which can be done without injustice to our church, and by righteous means. Then, as the second alternative, I would assist and encourage them to build up a black Presbyterian Church, ecclesiastically independent of, and separate from ours, but in relations of friendship and charity. To this end, I would extend to them ministerial and missionary labour liberally. I would aid them in church building. I would provide schools, separate from our own, for training black men to be pastors of black churches; and I would, if necessary, give ordination to enough men to form a separate Presbytery, when enough can be found possessed of constitutional qualifications. But I would make no black man a member of a white Session, or Presbytery, or Synod, or Assembly; nor would I give them any share in the government of our own church, nor any representation in it. “It is confusion.”
Now we confess that Dabney writes with great force and sharpness, and even some who are sympathetic to his principles will be put off by his words. To temper this somewhat, and to show the full picture of Southern Presbyterianism, we add two excerpts from Rev. Ebenezer Thompson Baird (1821–1887), from “The Religious Instruction of Our Coloured Population” (here, p. 345), a pastoral letter to the churches of the Tombeckbee Presbytery. In it he movingly appeals to white masters to labor for the souls of their black servants:
Our servants are bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. The Saviour Jesus, who died for us, died for them. How can we love Christ, and yet be destitute of love for our servants; and how can you, who are masters, refuse to exert yourselves for their salvation? The older ones gathered around your cradles and welcomed you into the world with joy in your nestling infancy; the younger ones were the friends, the companions and playmates of your childhood—all of them have participated both in your joys and in your sorrows. When you have wept at the graves of your kindred, they have wept with you; and when you shall be gathered to your fathers, among the sincerest mourners at your graves will be your own servants. How can you love Christ, and not love to give your servants, who are your best and most attached friends, the gospel of his love? And oh! how dare you think of that day and hour, when you shall be summoned yourselves by the Great Master, to give an account of your stewardship, and leave undone this most important part of your duty. And if it shall be so that, by God's great mercy, you shall yourselves be saved as by fire, how think you will you appear at the judgment seat, if it shall then be seen that your servants are lost through your default. Fearful, brethren, are the responsibilities of the master.
Baird, as Thornwell did above, also speaks movingly of how slavery has served the interests of both whites and blacks, and advanced their true spiritual unity in Christ:
But when we look for a single moment at the condition of our slaves, and compare it with what they were when they first came among us, barbarians and heathens from Africa, we are constrained to cry out: What hath not the Lord wrought for them? To-day they are as far superior to their savage ancestors as we are superior to them. So, also, this advancing civilization among them, sanctified by the spirit of Christianity, has done much to ameliorate the whole institution of slavery …
The master everywhere shows a more abiding interest in the true well-being of his servants; the servants exhibit a more trustful confidence in their master as their friend and protector. And so they go to the house of God together, learn their lessons of duty from the same Bible, rejoice in the hopes of a common salvation, and gather together around the table of the same Saviour.
We see in this that the Southern Presbyterians could at once affirm racial difference, even deep racial inequality, and recoil at any undue crossing of clear racial boundaries, yet at the same time happily live, work, and worship with their black servants, labor for their temporal and eternal good, and enjoy true unity and fellowship with them in Christ. These godly men are an excellent historical example of Christian race realism believed and applied, and for that they are worthy of our study, and our honor.
John Gresham Machen
We follow up on Thornwell and Dabney by introducing two of their Presbyterian children in the 20th century. The first is J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937), born in Baltimore, professor of New Testament and Greek, “Valiant for Truth” against the liberal takeover of the Northern Presbyterian church and its formerly stalwart Princeton Seminary, and founder of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, of Westminster Seminary, and after being unjustly suspended from the ministry, of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
That this faithful Christian warrior was also a proponent of race realism, is proved by two points of evidence. First, in his book Christianity and Liberalism, he recognizes that the cause of Christian truth and political liberty are inseparable. And furthermore, he asserts that egalitarian uniformity is the enemy of such liberty, and also that the greatest expression of the principles of political liberty is the particular inheritance of a particular ethnicity:
The truth is that the materialistic paternalism of the present day, if allowed to go on unchecked, will rapidly make of America one huge “Main Street,” where spiritual adventure will be discouraged and democracy will be regarded as consisting in the reduction of all mankind to the proportions of the narrowest and least gifted of the citizens. God grant that there may come a reaction, and that the great principles of Anglo-Saxon liberty may be rediscovered before it is too late!
Second, in his days as a student at Princeton Seminary, he was a proponent of racial segregation. An article on this matter is behind a paywall, but on the author’s X account we find excerpts from a letter Machen wrote his mother on October 5, 1913:
Machen goes on to report how in this matter he opposed his beloved professor B. B. Warfield (whom we quoted above praising Dabney):
It appears from Machen’s words that he held to historic Christian race realism, and was willing to defend it, at least in private conversations. Among other things, we would simply note the stark contrast in the fact that leaders in the denomination Machen himself founded now publicly condemn Machen’s opinions on this matter.
Morton Howison Smith
The final man we’ll meet here, and indeed one of the last links in the unbroken chain of centuries of Christian race realism in America, is Morton H. Smith (1923–2017), a student at Machen’s Westminster Seminary, a Presbyterian minister, and the first Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church in America, a Southern church whose founding manifesto, the 1973 “Message to All Churches,” came from Smith’s Clerk’s office, and self-consciously modeled itself on, and quoted from, Thornwell’s 1861 “Address to All Churches” which we considered above. Among other notable accomplishments, Dr. Smith’s dissertation, Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology, has been a boon to the recovery of knowledge about the faithful men we met above. Dr. Smith also was instrumental in the founding of Reformed Theological Seminary and Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
Dr. Smith’s views on race are presented in an October 1964 article in the Presbyterian Guardian (p. 125). Starting as we did from Paul’s statement in Acts 17:26, he speaks of mankind’s unity, and his diversity, then moves on to the example of God’s segregating Israel from other nations in the Old Testament, stating from God’s example, “The principle of segregation as such is not necessarily sinful in and of itself.” Considering the New Testament, he draws on the parallel of distinction in sex to prove an important point: “Thus Paul’s doctrine of the unity of the church should not be construed as teaching that the church should forget or erase the God-given distinctions. Rather, she should recognize them and develop them in their particular gifts.” He goes on to insist that sincere Negro worshipers have been generally welcomed in Southern white churches, and that exceptions had to come only because of the agitation of those visiting merely to press the cause of total integration. In discussing intermarriage, Dr. Smith is more conciliatory than fiery Dr. Dabney, but their agreement is still evident:
The Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.
It therefore appears that even in the 1960s, the voice of Christian race realism in American had not been totally silenced.
Conclusion
In the testimonies above, we have seen Christian race realism as it was maintained by godly and respected men over at least three hundred years. Historic American Christians have recognized the God-ordained distinctions between races, made efforts to see those distinctions preserved and honored, and when challenged, manfully defended their position, demonstrating that their views were consistent with the highest standards of Christian piety and duty, and that they tended to the temporal and spiritual blessing of every race.
In light of this, we would make a concluding plea. Christians, American or otherwise, need to confess our ignorance of our own history, and endeavor to relearn it. And in so doing, we need to reckon honestly with the fact that Christian race realism is not the strange, novel, or shocking doctrine many say it is. It is certainly not the province of an embarrassing, ungodly fringe of radicals. Rather, for centuries, well into recent history, it was normal and normative in the United States, one of the most Protestant nations in history. It was held by some of the most orthodox Christians, even the most respected Christian ministers, who have ever lived. Moreover, it has been believed and applied most tenaciously in one of the most Christian regions of the entire world, the American South. Contrast this to the fact that the 19th-century racial revolution was led by the likes of William Lloyd Garrison, an anarchist and feminist, and Frederick Douglass, who loved liberal heretics like Strauss and Feuerbach. The 20th-century racial revolution was even more godless, as shown in its patron saint Martin Luther King Jr., an apostate heretic and serial adulterer, who kept close company with communists and Jews. Moreover, the legal monuments to racial egalitarianism also themselves kept evil company: the same court of Chief Justice Earl Warren that ended anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia had also ended recitation of prayers and reading of the Bible in public schools in Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp. The same decade of the victory of “Civil Rights,” the 1960s, is still notorious today for its licentiousness and instability. American Christians should not wish to approve of, much less to celebrate, such a low point in their nation’s past, and yet they do, in part because of ignorance of history.
With God’s help, let us put aside this ignorance. Let us learn from our own fathers in the faith. And let us follow them in speaking truths about race sensibly and scripturally, and in applying those truths in our present evil day with godly prudence.
Articles in this Series
Christian Race Realism
4. History
7. Bibliography