As established in part 1, this large and rapidly expanding “Woke Church” (Afrocentric/Anti-White) ideology spilling over one doctrinal bulkhead after another is predicated on what we may call the Leithart/Oden thesis that Christianity is an essentially Hamitic faith. But back of which, ultimately, is James Cone’s satanic assertion that “God is Black and salvation comes only by embrace and worship of Blackness.”
If you think connecting Leithart’s and Oden’s ideas to Cone’s is a stretch, realize that the churches whom they’ve influenced have already come to presuppose Cone’s doctrine. Think of it — the whole ‘woke church’ narrative is punctuated by reference to the imago Dei in non-Whites. The implied accusation this tactic always carries is that to see no mandate for our doctrinal, national, cultural, and familial suicide, or any lack of obedience to minority demands, is somehow a denial of Blacks being human. And the only way not to be accused of denying the imago Dei in Blacks or POCs is to obey them without question. Which is to say, worship them.
As much as we’d rather dismiss the whole ‘woke’ bailiwick as inconsequential jailhouse Black Power nonsense, the governments of our denominations have been intimidated into confessing it wholesale. In fact, between the writing of parts 1 and 2, such proved the undertow at both the 150th SBC Conference and PCA 46th General Assembly. Both these supposed mossback battalions have officially announced their conversion to the new Nimrodianism in place of Christianity.
All curiously apace with the blackwashing of history underway outside the Church.
Even if the push to Afrocentize Christianity begs address on a widening front, we can start by looking at the initial foothold taken in Reformed and evangelical circles by the Oden/Leithart thesis. In condescending scolds they remind us that Tertullian, “The Father of Western Theology,” was Black. But was he?
All the standard sources on the man relay his having lived in Roman-occupied North Africa circa 155-240 AD, and come of Berber blood.
Who are the Berbers? Today we may find examples of Arabic-Negro groups claiming Berber heritage alongside Italic and blonde Celtic-looking tribes. And as respects language, the Berber tongue is not confined to any one race. But that is emphatically not the case being made in the Oden/Leithart thesis. The argument they are making is more strictly racial — that the Berbers, as natives of the African continent, must be accounted Blacks, categorically.
Never mind too that it is at loggerheads with the standard ethnic description the Berbers make of themselves:
The Berbers or Amazighs are an ethnic group indigenous to North Africa. They are distributed in an area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Siwa Oasis in Egypt, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Niger River. They Belong to the Caucasian–Mediterranean Race.
The ‘Caucasian-Mediterranean Race’ also overlaps large swaths of Syrians and Iranians who on sight could pass for Romanians or even Germans. Old Carthage was visibly of the same stock as Greece and Italy. Which, by appearance and civilizational bent, was of close blood to Alexandrian Egypt and Macedon (Acts 16:9). Ranging from a middle-olive cast to the hue of freckled Celts, the Mediterranean breed is, by sight as well as all classical and biblical history, Japhetic. And it isn’t just me saying that:
The first reference to the Ancient Berbers goes back to a very ancient Egyptian period. They were mentioned in the pre-dynastic period, on the so-called “Stele of Tehenou” which is still preserved in the Cairo museum in Egypt. That tablet is considered to be the oldest source wherein the Berbers have been mentioned.
The second source is known as The Stele of King Narmer. This tablet is newer than the first source, and it depicted the Tehenou as captives.
The second oldest name is Tamahou. This name was mentioned for the first time in the period of the first king of the “Sixth Dynasty” and was referred to in other sources after that period. According to Oric Bates, those people were white-skinned, with blond hair and blue eyes.
An easy way to vet this fact is simply to look at the busts of the Berber kings stretching back to well before the Christian era. Not one shows hint of any Hamitic strain. Or compare the busts of Carthaginian general Hannibal Barca with that of Julius Caesar. Though born to opposite sides of the Mediterranean, they could be brothers. And either could today be realistically portrayed in film by the likes of Norwegian/German actor Lance Henriksen.
It is to these Caucasic tribes of North Africa and the Near East that so many Church fathers belonged.
But the one singled out as proving beyond all shadow of doubt the thesis of a Black foundation is St. Athanasius, the so-called ‘Black dwarf’. This moniker cited ubiquitously at present, the Afrocentrists assure us, is proof positive that Athanasius was Black.
As it turns out though, if you follow the rabbit trail of what is now a lengthy run of citations, they lead back to a solitary source:
“Among those who were present at the Council of Nicea there was a young man, so dark and short that his enemies would later call him ‘the black dwarf.’ This was Athanasius, Alexander’s secretary…”
~Justo González, The Story of Christianity: Vol. 1, Ch. 19, p. 199
Yes, it was Puerto Rican liberationist professor Justo González who first introduced this description of Athanasius. The year was 1984.
That’s it. Nothing precedes it. Leithart’s big gun in this fight turns out to be nothing but the active imagination of an infamous late-twentieth-century liberation theologian — i.e., an overt Communist heretic who was himself forced to recant the theory nearly a decade ago. Quietly, of course, his 2010 edition of the work in question has been redacted to omit any mention of the ‘Black dwarf’.
So as the churches are presently hammering out the implications of this new ‘Woke Theology’, the Communist canard on which it is all based is long since debunked. Absurd doesn’t begin to describe it.
Especially since the traditional description of Athanasius as having “a slight stoop, a hooked nose and small mouth, a short beard spreading into large whiskers, and light auburn hair” (Phillip Schaff, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church) clearly precludes Black features. And it was this traditional description that informed all portraiture of him from the earliest times.
And since from these two — Tertullian and Athanasius — was Hamitic identity imputed to the other fathers, we needn’t address them all. Because all the lesser cases are predicated on false assumptions drawn from the stronger ones (e.g., “Athanasius was from North Africa and he was called ‘Black dwarf’, so all the North African fathers were Black”), they fall as a set.
Led away after these maleficent cognitive biases, the Alienists continue grasping at the most dubious straws to exalt all emblems of darkness over light. But it is precisely here that we have a great solace: the fact that these ‘Woke’ innovations are so transparently false, and their consequences so catastrophic, means theirs is a fuel which burns hot and fast, and shall quickly be snuffed out. As they reimagine the Church as a Hamitic spirit, the shades they invoke will, by their identification therewith, necessarily possess them. As another renowned North African father, Augustine, has said:
Again, the name Ham means ‘hot’; and Noah’s middle son, separating himself, as it were, from the other two, and remaining between them, is included neither in the first fruits of Israel nor in the fullness of the Gentiles; for what does he signify if not the ‘hot’ race of the heretics, who burn not with the spirit of wisdom, but with impatience? For it is with impatience that the breasts of the heretics are wont to glow; and it is for this reason that they disturb the peace of the saints.