Faith

Responding to Rev. James Norris on Racism in the Church

On Genesis 9, the Southern Presbyterians, and miscellaneous matters.

Samuel Ketcham

19 Mar 2026 — 12 min read

Shem, Ham, and Japheth, by James Tissot, here

Listen to the article.

0:00

/1392.209887

Pastor James Norris, a minister of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in his online article “Responding to Racism in the Church”, addressed my views on race and especially my exegesis of Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25-27. In this article, I will respond to his three main thoughts and then provide a few comments regarding miscellaneous things he wrote.

I will address four main points. Ideally my reader would have already read my article “Race and Noah” and Mr. Norris’ article. However, I will try to write in such a way that those who have not read either will still profit.

25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Mr. Norris took issue with my claim that Ham and all of his descendants were cursed despite the text only mentioning Canaan’s name. He argued, instead, that only Canaan was cursed (one of Ham’s sons). The reason for this apparent “injustice” was because Canaan was the youngest son of Ham and Ham also was the youngest son of Noah.

The problem with his position is that it does not actually explain why God cursed only Ham’s son Canaan. Only Ham sinned, why only curse Canaan? Pastor Norris admits that it was Ham that sinned against Noah (although he speculates that Canaan was involved). But why would God punish in this way? Stating that it was because they were both the youngest does not answer the question. How is this just for God to do this? How does this compare to the blessing upon Shem and the enlargement upon Japheth?

Furthermore, it is not clear that Ham is the youngest son of Noah. Norris emphasizes the birth order of Ham’s sons in Genesis 10:6. Canaan is mentioned last and Norris demands that this mandates birth order. However, he seems to ignore the birth order in Gen 10:1 which lists Ham second, not last. Why the inconsistency Mr. Norris? This is especially odd since he claims that both Ham and Canaan were the youngest. The fact of the matter is that the birth order of both Ham and Canaan is not clear (see Genesis 9:24, and 10:21). The fact of the matter is that genealogies are often by birth order, but not always (See 1 Chronicles 2:1-3 as one example). Finally, even if the order of names was somehow always indicating the birth order, then Ham was 2^nd and not the youngest (see Genesis 10:1) and Norris’ argument falls to the ground. He then would be lacking some type of argument for why Canaan only was cursed.

I find this very helpful to bring up because Norris rebukes me for being speculative but then speculates himself about Canaan’s involvement in the actual sin regarding Noah’s nakedness in the preceding text, “…the curse fitting fell on Ham’s youngest son, who may have also shared in his father’s perversions.” Isn’t this speculation, Mr. Norris? All speculate about some of the finer details in this prophecy (even O. Palmer Robertson, whom he cites approvingly). The question is who provides the best and most reliable reasons for what happened in the text. See my article for more information.

Additionally, what was the curse? Norris seems to give two answers. He first quotes Robertson, which provides a more general answer, and then second, Norris cites the conquest of Canaan:

What then is the curse placed upon Canaan? Robertson writes, “it is the curse of being separated from the redemptive activity of God that is implied in the passage. The Lord of the covenant will be the God of some of the descendants of Noah, bringing blessing to their lives. At the same time, others of the descendants of Noah will be cursed by this same God.”[4] There were many nations guilty of idolatry and various other sins on the Earth, but it was particularly the Canaanites who were to fall under the curse of destruction as Israel took hold of the Promised Land. Just like the inhabitants of the Earth in Noah’s day, the Canaanites serve as an example of the judgment that will fall upon those who do not put their faith in the LORD, the God of Shem.

The problem with Norris’ view is twofold. First, insofar as he cites Robertson, he fails to notice the geo-political ramifications of the prophecy. I will take this up in my next point. But secondly, insofar as Norris thinks that the curse is a “curse of destruction” upon the Canaanites, he falls short in two ways. First, the text says “a servant of servants” shall he be to his brethren. It does not say he will be destroyed or annihilated. Second, Norris cannot explain how it is that Canaan will be a servant to Japheth (see v.27). Japheth’s descendants were not involved in the conquest of Canaan, only Shem’s descendants (Israel). Yet the text says, “God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

Norris writes:

“One larger issue to be considered is the interpretive grid through which Genesis 9:25-27 is to be understood. In short, should this text be understood as redemptive-historical or political-ethnic?”

Norris makes the same mistake as O. Palmer Robertson.¹ In fact, it is almost like Norris failed to read my article, because I go into this part in depth. The question is not whether Genesis 9 is to be understood redemptively in the context of the history of salvation. Of course it is to be understood in this redemptive-historical context. The question is whether this prophecy has any implications for natural things and for the nations coming from these men (Shem, Japheth, and Ham). In other words, is it only about grace and salvation or does the prophecy also speak to what will happen to nations in space and time?

Norris tries to take the “spiritual high ground” by emphasizing God’s plan of redemption in history. I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that people today, for obvious social and political reasons, ignore the natural implications of this text and only want to talk about redemption and God’s covenant of grace.

Norris, in this context, pivots to Daniel’s prophecies and makes the same mistake:

“… the heart of the purpose of Daniel’s prophecies was not ultimately to foretell political future, but so that God’s people could know that his covenant promises still endured. Those kingdoms and everything that transpired in subsequent history were subservient to the LORD’s plan of redemption…”

I agree with Norris as far as he goes. The problem is that Norris seems to forget that Daniel’s prophecies also had implications for natural things and the rise and fall of nations. It was not just about the elect coming to Christ. And this is the problem with both Norris and Robertson. They refuse to acknowledge the natural and the political implications of Noah’s prophecy. As I point out in my original article, this was not the habit of commentators before the modern era. Why? Because those commentators wrote before the egalitarian delusion took over the Christian church in the West!

Norris, like many of his counterparts (i.e. his fellow ARP minister Ben Glaser, notorious for authoring a statement on racial egalitarianism adopted by various churches), are simply unable to handle the history of this debate. On one hand, they want to honor the racists of their own beloved ARP church (Thornwell)² and they want to be able to quote and read the brilliant southern Presbyterians (Dabney, Palmer, etc). Yet, on the other hand, they want to humiliate and excommunicate the men today who hold to those same views. It is a hypocritical inconsistency that they are unable to reconcile.

One way Norris tries to reconcile this obvious hypocrisy is to say:

“…none of these historic men of faith were ever challenged in those views by the courts of the church to whom they were accountable.”

First, I would say, “Why does this matter?” If they were wrong, then condemn them. Why do they have to be challenged by the court to which they belong? Does Norris think the church courts are infallible and therefore must be obeyed automatically? Norris seems to be indicating a blind obedience to the courts of the church as if he were a papist and believed in the infallibility of the church. Second, the Southern Presbyterian “racists” absolutely were challenged by the courts of the church to which they belonged.

Where has Mr. Norris been? Does he know there was a war fought between 1861-1865 in the United States called the “Civil War”? Does he know that the mainline Presbyterian church to which these men (Dabney, Thornwell, Palmer) belonged split between the North and the South largely over the issue of slavery? Even if someone wants to say that the church split was not over “slavery” per se, still if anyone knows anything about American History, they know that for decades before the war actually started, Northern Abolitionist ministers had been preaching and rebuking the South for their alleged sins. Books were written, magazines were printed, debates were held. The Southern racists had been rebuked and challenged by the church. In fact, a long bloody war was fought over it!

Norris would like to paint these men as racists who just didn’t realize their time. No! They were stubborn racists who knew exactly what they were doing and who fought tooth and nail to keep their “inferior” slaves! He wants to make their “sin” look all pretty so that he can still have an excuse to read all their great books.

Norris cannot have his cake and eat it too. He must condemn these men as ungodly men who are not worth our time just as he condemns the modern-day racists like me who believe what these men believed.

4: Miscellany:

There are seven comments that Norris makes that I must not let go unanswered. He says many wrong and childish things, but these seven must be answered.

First, he never defines “racism.” He just asserts it as a sin and a problem. This adds to the confusion. What does he mean by racism? Norris needs to realize that one of the reasons why young men are growing warm to Race Realist positions is that the modern mainline church does not have the answers. It is not a sin to notice differences between the races and act accordingly. It used to be called racism, but now that Marxism has almost ruined the country and the younger generation is dealing with the problems and insanity of the cultural Marxism of preceding generations, slighting comments like “racism” just do not cut it. Define your terms. Defend them biblically. Stop asserting and begging the question.

Second, he admits that there is a rise in “Kinist” views in recent times and he attempts to give his reason why:

“To be more specific, if I had to point my finger at any one thing in our own society, I would point it the embrace of wokeism and Critical Race Theory by churches following the George Floyd protests and Black Lives Matter movements of 2020.”

No, Mr. Norris. Actually, the reason why young White men are starting to look around and ask questions is because of the foreign horde that has come into our country in the last 6 years and the fact that anti-White hatred is the sinful “racism” of our day. And the fact that this type of thing has been going on for many years now.

I suppose he is partially correct, but he seems to be saying that the BLM movement and the CRT mania is an isolated issue from the rest of American history. He needs to wake up and realize that his own White people are the most hated of all in America and in Europe. Let me guess, Norris goes to a White church, went to White schools, lives in a White neighborhood and hardly ever talks to minorities? Probably the case.

Third, Norris makes people like me to be guilty by association. He talks about the evolutionary trends of the 19^th century and “scientific race realism” and tries to smear me and men like Dabney with such views. It is just stupid and unhelpful. Just because Darwin drank water and I drink water and Dabney drank water doesn’t mean that we are all evolutionists.

Fourth, Norris reveals his stupidity in the following quote, “It will be objected that our standards never mention the word “racism,” yet neither do they include the expression “internet pornography” because neither were 17th century concepts.” Correct, Mr. Norris, the Westminster Confession of Faith does not mention the words ‘internet pornography’ but it does mention lusting after a women in the heart. Likewise, “racism” is a modern term, but the Westminster divines could have easily written up a Marxist and racial egalitarian paragraph on the doctrine of man. Yet they did not. I wonder why? Maybe it was because they were all White men living in nations which dominated the world? These men never would have thought twice about questioning ethnic nationalism, the exceeding imprudence of inter-racial marriage (especially with Africans), and the dominance of White nations.

Fifth, Norris speaks briefly about inter-racial marriage. I wrote a whole article on the topic but just want to address one small point. Norris brings up Leviticus 18 and the lines of consanguinity and affinity. It needs to be pointed out that Moses only governed how close a marriage could be not how far (in blood) a marriage could be. Why? Because nations were extended families and normally everyone married those near to them. The question was never, “How far away from my own kin can I marry?” The question was, “How close is too close?” Why? Because that was the norm and expected.

People married those near to them. Nations were ethnic, extended families and exceptions were just that—exceptions (Moses, Joseph, Ruth, etc). However, as Norris seemed to suggest, inter-racial marriage is now “next level” Christianity. White Christians today must accept Marxist immigration policies and amalgamate. Indians, Arabs, Mexicans, White and Blacks must just accept one another as Christians and marry without consideration of what God actually wants for nations. This is what Norris is suggesting. It is stupid.

Sixth, near the beginning of his article he states that Kinists are fighting “racism” with more racism. Again, I do not know what he means by “racism”, but I get the impression that he is saying that we need to be nice to our crazy BLM and CRT neighbors. He then exhorts his reader that from 1 Peter 3:9, “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called.”

This sounds all godly, but it is pacifism. Norris is like almost every other minister in his denomination and NAPARC. They are pacificists who deny what is going on and who do not want to fight real evil. If someone came into Mr. Norris’ house at night and wanted to harm his family, would he share the gospel with the criminal or shoot him in the chest? Isn’t that the main issue after all—the man is not a Christian? The fact of the matter is that White replacement is a real thing which is orchestrated by the powers that be (largely Jews) and I have every “natural” right to be angry and defend my people. Norris is just a pacifist who is scared and who wants to sound godly by quoting pious verses. After all, the Bible also says, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” So we obviously shouldn’t make any judgments at all, right?

Seventh, it all comes down to ad hominem arguments. At the end of his article, Norris indirectly attacks my character. He says, “The root sin behind it all is that chief of sins, pride because pride is all about seeking and pursuing self-exaltation. Pride is the heart-issue of those who wish to establish white-supremacy in the church and society.” He cannot rest his arguments on exegesis and reason, but must attack my character. Obviously, I must have a heart issue. This is what Drew Poplin did in my own ecclesiastical trial.³ He had to attack my motives and character, not just what I had written.

Consider this claim: Pride is the root heart issue for all the men in the ARP who deny the eldership to women. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the Bible, but instead, these men are proud. They do not want to share the responsibility of leading God’s people with women, but claim all the power for themselves. It is the root issue why the ARP will not allow for women pastors—pride.

Does anybody buy that argument? No. Why? Because it is stupid. Yet, many people who read this article will think that Norris is on to something by saying that I am proud. It is just an ad hominem that means nothing. Why can’t I be concerned about my own people and the fact that they are on the road to extinction?

Footnotes

See Robertson’s article here: https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/files_JETS-PDFs_41_41-2_41-2-pp177-188-JETS.pdf
Thornwell was not in the ARP but he pastored the famous First Presbyterian church of Columbia, SC which later joined the ARP denomination. Either way, the ARP denomination was and is primarily a southern church.
Drew Poplin was the prosector in my ecclesiastical trial wherein I was falsely excommunicated for racism by my Presbytery (RPCNA). You can watch the video of my trial on my YouTube page here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVGTVM1A_qg4q5kh5-LJySA1NrbKQqrNF

ATTENTION READER:

Institutional trust is at record lows. But without institutions, we cannot renew our people, much less provide an inheritance to posterity. In response to this crisis and as an organic outgrowth both of necessity and natural interest, American Mantle exists. And so we make our appeal.

Donate to the Cause. Help us reach our monthly goal in order to solidify this crucial institution.