Comments on Rev. Andy Webb's Breakdown of the ARP Resolution

 My Comments on Rev. Andy Webb’s Breakdown of the ARP Statement:

Rev. Webb’s remarks in full can be found here also, without my commentary: https://x.com/PastorAndyWebb/status/2022046210375500116  

Now, my comments are inserted in BOLD FONT below:

 “The Mildest Position

At the risk of being told I’m writing another dissertation, I’m tired enough of reading the loaded “What is the mildest position this resolution condemns?” question in reference to the ARP’s declaration on theological or political teachings which posit a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable* human characteristics to attempt to write a reply. In doing so, I cannot claim to speak for the entire ARP, and I need to emphasize that these are only my own thoughts, not a statement from my session or presbytery.

 

Let’s begin by looking at the original statement, and let me start by giving what is in essence a summary of my position – a TL;DR if you will:

 

"That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission."

To which some have repeatedly asked, “What is the mildest position this resolution condemns?”

To me, that question is rather like when teens ask, "How much hanky panky can we get away with on a date before we've broken the 7th Commandment?" or if someone asks, "What's the mildest untruth I can tell without breaking the 9th commandment?"

We would immediately point out why both of those questions are fundamentally wrongheaded.

But to get to the point, the 221st General Synod did not condemn tone, temperament, or political preference. It condemned a principle: the teaching that any race or ethnic identity is inherently superior by virtue of immutable characteristics.

There is no “mild” version of racial superiority that is acceptable in Christian theology. Either one believes that all people are equally created in the image of God and “from one blood” (Acts 17:26), or one does not. Either one rejects partiality and inherited hierarchy (James 2), or one does not reject them.

[Yes, indeed, and I and all race realists that I know of affirm that all people are equally made in God's image and are from one blood as Acts 17:26 states. Regarding not showing partiality per James 2, I can heartily affirm Matthew Poole's words on that passage here. Whether or not that passes Rev. Webb's standards, who knows:

 

"To have, then, the faith of Christ with respect of persons, is to esteem the professors of religion, not for their faith, or relation to Christ, but according to their worldly condition, their being great or mean, rich or poor; this the apostle taxeth in the Hebrews to whom he wrote, that whereas in the things of God all believers are equal, they respected the greater and richer sort of professors, because great or rich; so as to despise those that were poor or low. The Greek hath the word plurally, respects, which may intimate the several ways of respecting persons, in judgment or out, of judgment. This doth not exclude the civil respect we owe to magistrates and superiors upon the account of their places or gifts; but only a respecting men in the things of religion upon such accounts as are extrinsical to religion; or, with prejudice to others as considerable in religion as themselves, though inferior to them in the world."]

The resolution does not forbid cultural pride, love of heritage, debates over immigration, or prudential political debate. It draws a clear theological boundary against racial superiority rooted in birth. That boundary is not radical. It is simply Christian.

If someone keeps searching for the mildest possible form of racial hierarchy to preserve, the real issue is not the wording of the resolution but the principle it rejects.

The ARP Synod and the other Presbyterian Assemblies that have adopted the statement spoke clearly, biblically, and appropriately.

[Actually, no, it still isn't really that clear to me and many others precisely what is condemned, and what is not. But let's keep reading Webb's explanation of the statement.]

That’s enough for the broad summary statement, now let me get into the weeds and discuss the specifics:

When people repeatedly ask, “What is the mildest position this resolution condemns?” (from this point on I’m going to refer to this as “the question”) they imagine they have exposed a weakness, but the question itself rests on a misunderstanding of how Christian moral boundaries function. The General Synod’s resolution (hereafter “the resolution”) does not operate on a sliding scale of tone, emphasis, or temperature. It addresses a principle: any theological or political teaching that posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics. That is a categorical boundary, not a spectrum.

[Still need to know what exactly is a "teaching that posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics." If we note that IQ is much lower in some races than others, and that those with higher IQ on average have a superiority in this area that is strongly connected to their lineage or race or biology or genetics, does that run afoul of the resolution?]

Let me try to expand on that by pointing out at least five problems with the question itself.

The first problem with the question is simple category confusion. Either a teaching asserts inherent racial superiority grounded in immutable traits, or it does not. There is no meaningful “mild” version of that principle. It’s like asking, “What is the mildest form of denying Christ’s Lordship?” Once the principle is embraced, the question has already crossed the line, even in its mildest form. Christian theology does not measure sin by decibel level.

[Why is it sinful to say that some races of men have superiorities in certain ways over others? Is it a sin to say that men were designed to rule women, and women were not designed to rule and lead? Has this already crossed over into sin to assert this? Asian people have the highest average IQ, and it has been this way as long as we have been measuring IQ. If one concludes that this is an immutable characteristic, or something that would only change over many, many generations, have we now run afoul of "the resolution"?]

Secondly, the resolution condemns the principle itself, not its tone. Someone might say, “Race A is inherently more suited for leadership than Race B.” Even if one frames that claim politely or statistically, the claim itself still asserts racial superiority rooted in immutable characteristics, and the gentleness or harshness of one’s delivery does not change the substance of the claim. James makes the point in chapter 2 that Christians are not to “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality” but to love our neighbors as ourselves. He writes in James 2:8-9, “If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well; but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.” The apostle does not say you can express partiality as long as you do it in a moderate or “mild” manner.

[Now this is truly a non-sequitur. What on earth does James 2 have to do with recognizing that some races or nations or tribes or people groups are better and more suited for leadership than others? And how far does Rev. Webb take this? Are we allowed to say that ANY individual human being is more suited for leadership than others? Are females just as capable of leadership as males? Are all males equally capable of ruling and leading as every other male? Is this really what we must believe in order to not be excommunicated?! Is it really sinful partiality to notice that some people are more naturally gifted at ruling well and leading than others?]

Thirdly, the question actually functions as a rhetorical trap. It assumes that if we can identify a mild edge case, then the resolution must be extreme and is therefore to be rejected in toto, but clarity about sin does not make a standard unreasonable. The Sixth Commandment does not become harsh because someone asks about the mildest form of hatred that it condemns as sinful. Similarly, the Ninth Commandment does not become excessive because someone finds some mild distortions of truth to be acceptable, especially when the distortion is in answer to questions like, “Does this dress make me look fat?” Scripture sets categorical lines because God’s moral law reflects His holy and unchanging character.

 

The issue of what the Word of God says about races is, of course, key to this entire matter. Acts 17:26 declares that God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth”. That verse does not deny cultural diversity, but it does deny ontological hierarchy.

[Wow. Truly confusing. But I and every race realist, kinist, ethno-nationalist, Christian Nationalist, and all the other words that scare Rev. Webb that I know affirm that we all come from Adam and that God has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth. I do not know anyone saying that there is an ontological hierarchy. However, it does seem that Rev. Webb thinks that the 1 talent person, 2 talent person, and 5 talent person (or race or nation for that matter) must imply an ontological distinction. This is false. Males are made to rule, women are not. Does this mean that women are ontologically inferior to men? And there still needs to be further defining of "ontological hierarchy" anyway. But if the point is that we are all equally made in God's image, yes and amen. If Webb is demanding that we affirm that all are equally gifted and given the same amount of natural talents, well, no, the Bible and reality clearly demonstrate otherwise.]

Humanity shares one origin and one image-bearing dignity. Genesis 1:27 teaches that man is created in the image of God, and that image is not distributed in degrees along racial lines.

[This is so unclear and muddled. No one I know of would deny that we all have one origin (in Adam), and further, we have a "dignity" from that Adam. We are all fallen in Adam. I have also never heard anyone I am close with say that God's image is diluted or reduced or removed by degrees along racial lines. All races are from Adam, and are 100% in the image of God. But surely we can recognize that total depravity is not utter or radical depravity, and that while all are dead in trespasses and sins, some suppress the truth in unrighteousness more than others? God has given over some more to their wickedness than others. And again, going back to the parable of the talents, etc., some have more natural capacities, in more measure, than others. All have arms, legs, and brains (barring birth defects and obvious things like that). Some are born with stronger and healthier bodies, some with sharper minds. Who on earth would say that a stronger mind and body at birth, inherited from a healthy lineage or pedigree means that you have more of the image of God in you than a person with a weaker body or mind? The image of God is not a "dimmer switch" like that. But, I do believe that some Reformed theologians will make a distinction regarding the image of God in a narrower and broader sense. But I trust this is sufficient for now.]

Ephesians 2:14 proclaims that Christ “has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation”. The gospel tears down inherited barriers; it does not sanctify them. To claim that immutable racial characteristics confer superiority is to contradict both creation and redemption.

[“The gospel tears down inherited barriers; it does not sanctify them". What does this mean? Whatever it means, it is likely a confusion of our unity in Christ, a Spiritual unity, with a natural or racial unity or something like that. Is Rev. Webb trying to say that those in Christ, or since the coming of Christ in general, racial differences in terms of natural giftings and aptitudes are now "torn down" and all are perfectly equal? This is clearly not the case. Further, how in the world does this deny both creation and redemption? Adam and Eve were both made in God's image, yet distinctly, as male and female, with different giftings and purposes. Is it really hard to imagine in even an unfallen world, races would develop over time, and some races would be superior to others in certain abilities and giftings? Or would we all be the same height, weight, strength, and intelligence from the start? And for those now redeemed in Christ, are we all equal in our abilities and giftings? So many Bible verses and common sense tell us otherwise. There are higher and lower Spiritual gifts, and we are told Christ gives His gifts as He sees fit, in His measure. The WLC 124 on the 5th commandment says that we are to honor "all superiors in age and gifts" and one of the proof texts for "gifts" is Genesis 4:20-22 which states,

 

'And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.'

 

I would love for Rev. Webb to answer what it means that Jabal was the "father" of those who dwell in tents and have livestock, or that Jubal was the "father of all those who play the harp and flute". Is this not clearly connecting lineage and aptitude in certain areas, and saying these are superiors and especially gifted by God to do these things? Is being a tent-dweller and having livestock a supernatural gift, or is it not a natural aptitude and capacity? Was this all abolished somehow at the cross when Christ came to earth, so that now no one is more naturally gifted and inclined to be a tent-dweller and keeper of livestock than the next person? And even if someone was wrong on how they answered this, how on earth does that error amount to denying the gospel or unity in Christ Jesus?

Fourthly, the repeated search for a “mild” example would seem to me to signal an attempt at moral evasion. If someone continually presses to find the softest possible version of racial hierarchy that might survive the resolution, it is fair to ask why preserving such a version matters. The ARP Synod did not condemn love of heritage, love of one’s people, immigration policy debates, cultural memory, or national sovereignty; it condemned a specific doctrinal claim: that superiority is born into a race or ethnic identity by immutable characteristics. If one does not hold that view, the resolution does not apply. On the other hand, if one does believe that some races are inherently superior to others because of the immutable characteristics that people are born with, then one runs afoul of the resolution.

 

Having said that, it is important to state plainly what the resolution does not address. It does not deny that cultures differ or that some cultures that have been less influenced or uninfluenced by Christianity are prone to certain sins, as Paul does in Titus 1:12-13**. It does not forbid Christians from honoring their ancestry. It does not erase the biblical reality of nations and peoples. Revelation 7:9 speaks of “a great multitude… of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues” who worship the Lord together in heaven. The diversity of humanity is part of God’s providential design, but that diversity is not supposed to be a ranking system. The existence of distinct peoples does not authorize inherited hierarchy. The moral law requires justice without partiality, and as I pointed out earlier, partiality rooted in immutable racial traits falls under the rebuke in James 2.

This is just desperation on Rev. Webb's part. He is evidently trying to stake the whole thing on James 2 and not showing partiality, and then says that if you recognize that white races on average are smarter than black races, and this is inborn, ingrained, or immutable, you have somehow violated the moral law and have been unjust. What? First of all, every race realist I know grants that there are intelligent, even highly intelligent people from every race, including Africans/blacks. I certainly have no problem saying there are some Africans/blacks that have a higher IQ than I have.

 

Further, do cultures commit sin, or do people commit sin? And do cultures flow out at random, or are they intimately connected with the race of a given people? Do Indian children naturally incline toward European culture, or vice versa? Culture is influenced by more than race alone, but who would seriously argue that race is not a major factor, at least, in culture?

 

If we are allowed to honor our ancestry, then can we actually notice that our white, European ancestry has been greatly blessed by God, and in some ways, in fact in many ways more greatly blessed than at least certain other ancestries? Or is this sinful? What are the rules?!

 

Further, certainly the influence of Christianity on a race/nation will positively impact that race or nation, at least if God softens their heart or their government is ruling in light of God's law, etc. (Christian Nationalism anyone?). But it is not as if all the pagan nations were equally heinous or equally barbaric. Some went much further than others. All were damned without the Gospel, but some did more (or at least, sinned in lesser degrees) with the light of nature and natural revelation than others. Some will be beaten in hell with many stripes, some with fewer. But we also know that God curses generationally, and visits the iniquity of fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation to those who hate Him and worship idols. Calvin, Poole, Henry, and others say this ultimately applies not only to violating the second commandment, but any commandment persisted in more broadly speaking. And what of God's differing blessings and cursings to Shem, Ham, and Japheth in Genesis 9, from whom came all the nations and races, all the tribes, tongues, and nations of the world?

Fifthly, the question seems to me to be seeking create a spectrum where none exists. It assumes that if a principle has degrees of expression, it must have degrees of legitimacy, but Christian ethics frequently works in binaries. Either Christ is Lord, or He is not. Either all men bear God’s image equally, or they do not. Either immutable characteristics confer moral superiority, or they do not.

[Ah, now that is the first time I believe I have seen Webb or anyone pinpoint that they are talking specifically about a MORAL superiority. All I can say is, I do not know anyone who would say that there is an immutable MORAL superiority of this or that race. However, that is different than noting that some races or nations are, at present and in general, more moral than others. What do we mean when we speak of barbaric tribes vs. more civilized races or peoples? But I do not see why we cannot say that some races, by a combination of their intelligence, dispositions and inclinations, etc., are relatively less immoral than others, even without the Gospel, though of course God may give over even such a race to judicial hardening and other factors that would lead them to use their superior gifts for greater evils and atrocities. But is it a sin to say that in our nation today, whites are generally more moral than blacks, and it has been that way throughout the history of our nation? Because it is true. And it is not hatred to say this. It would be hatred to deny God's kindness to our own race and pretend we are worse than we really are. And we have certainly declined as a race and nation, morally speaking, tremendously in the last 100+ years. And what would Rev. Webb say of Charles Hodge's words here:

'It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character; we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, without asking ourselves any questions as to the origin of these distinguishing characteristics. And if we do raise that question, although we are forced to answer it by admitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is the instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind.'

And again, nobody is denying that all mankind is made in God's image, and bear God's image equally. But that does not mean that all mankind is equally moral or intelligent or gifted.]

The resolution identifies that boundary clearly; immutable racial characteristics do not confer superiority.

 

I expect at this point, even after critiquing the question itself, that someone might still say, “Well, you said a lot, but you didn’t actually answer the question and identify the mildest position this condemns!” So, I will answer “without horns and without teeth” as Martin Luther might have put it: the mildest position the resolution condemns is any teaching that says, in however restrained a way, that birth into a particular race makes one inherently superior in worth, authority, or moral standing. Any theological or political teaching that does that is condemned.

 

That is not vagueness, it is moral clarity. The line is not drawn at the heat of the rhetoric, but at the heart of the doctrine.

Sigh. This is still vague and muddled. Go back to all I said above. Go back to the Hodge quote. If I affirm that all are made equally in God's image, but some are naturally more intelligent and less inclined to heinous sins than others, so they therefore have a natural advantage in terms of moral leadership, and in that area are superior to others, have I violated this Egalitarian doctrine that Rev. Webb has concocted? Likely so. But his doctrine is not found in Scripture. Natural inequalities that run along racial lines/lineages is what we find in Scripture. If the whole rub is over "immutable" I would argue that these are not utterly immutable, though others have said they are relatively permanent, generally speaking. So does that run afoul of the ARP statement/resolution? How, again, does this deny that all mankind are equally made in God's image, and how does this violate James 2 or Ephesians 2:14? It does not. But it does violate these man-made Egalitarian doctrines of Rev. Webb and company.

 

Further, I do not know anyone who says that any particular race or tribe should be forbidden from self-rule in all circumstances. Honestly, some tribes or races may fall into such wickedness and desperate straits that they need the oversight of a stronger tribe or race or nation to rehabilitate them. Is this really that scary to say? Is it not actually loving to be honest like this? Moreover, in Lev. 25:39-46, we read that a kinsmen who becomes poor and sells himself to you should be treated as a hired servant and sojourner rather than a slave, and he should be released at the Year of Jubilee. But the children of strangers you may buy and keep as your property. They can even become your inheritance for your children after you and be your permanent slaves. Is this racism? Is this kinism? Is this evil? Is this sinful partiality? If this is allegedly a dividing wall that the Gospel has torn down, as Rev. Webb seems to suggest, then why did Paul address masters of slaves as Christians, and simply tell them to treat their slaves well? Further, why did he tell the Christian slaves to serve their master well? Dr. Pipa of Greenville Seminary says that the Gospel and the NT does not abolish slavery (https://tulipdrivenlife.blogspot.com/2026/02/dr-joseph-pipa-on-cultural-superiority.html). Rev. Webb is a supporter of Greenville Seminary. What does this mean?

* Immutable racial characteristics refer to traits that are inherent and cannot be changed, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture, facial features, or genetic ancestry. These are considered "accidents of birth" and are protected under anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on such unalterable attributes associated with race.

 

Mutable racial characteristics, in contrast, are traits or practices that can be altered or chosen, even if they are culturally or physiologically linked to a particular racial or ethnic group. Examples include hairstyles, grooming practices, clothing styles, or cultural behaviors. Civil courts have sometimes ruled that discrimination based solely on these mutable aspects does not violate Title VII, as they are not seen as fixed or fundamental to racial identity in the same way as immutable traits are.

 

** It is also important to remember that Paul correctly assumes that the Gospel can and will change those cultures and deal with the sins they are prone to.”

 

[Well first, Webb put the asterisk at a phrase that said "immutable human characteristics" and here he says "immutable racial characteristics". This is part of the difficulty in parsing through all of this. But now I am more confused. Is he saying genetic ancestry has nothing to do with your natural gifts and talents? This is, far as I can tell, just liberalism, progressivism, racial egalitarianism, racial Gnosticism even.

 

And I can close by saying yes, praise God that His saving grace changes sinners, and works in their heart, and therefore leavens a people and improves their cultures. But this does not mean when you are born again that you get an IQ boost, really it means that you are now at war with the lusts of your flesh, and the reigning power of sin is no longer over you, and so you are by the Spirit to put to death the deeds of the body, the lusts of the flesh. But there is not a giant reset button where every born again Christian now has an equal amount of fleshly temptations. The sins you struggled with prior to conversion, your besetting sins, are likely the ones you will have to fight against hardest as a Christian now. And by God's grace, all who are justified in Christ by faith alone, will grow and mature in sanctification, and progressively defeat the world, flesh, and the devil.

 

But salvation itself does not increase natural talent or aptitude. It might indirectly, over generations, help natural capacities, as there is an interplay between nature and nurture over generations, and the work of the Spirit, though immediately on the soul, undoubtedly has some salutary effects on the body and mind as well. But none of this gets you to a racial egalitarianism where every nation or race at all times are naturally equal in terms of giftings or aptitudes and abilities. Consider again the parable of the talents, read that passage, look at Matthew Poole's commentary on it, etc.]