Introduction

T


he following study originated when this pastor received a fifteen part lesson series entitled "Star Wars," by Nord Davis, Jr., and a request to review the lessons. As "Star Wars" was examined and other material encountered and contemplated, the study expanded to include the general teachings of Anglo-Saxonism (A-S), British-Israelism (B-I), and/or Christian-Identity. Finally, it was edited to deal primarily with the reproduced Identity Doctrinal Statement. According to our study, we assume the reproduced "Kingdom-Identity" doctrinal statement at the end of this study reflects basic "Christian-Identity" theory. Obviously, not all identifying with Identity hold to all the points in the statement.

Identity presents some assumptions making its theories plausible, appealing and maybe for some even acceptable. The following document uses Davis' material to go beyond a superficial look at Identity's presumptions. Because he takes Identity's basic doctrines to their logical extremes, he makes Identity's unBiblical absurdities even more absurd and easily recognized for their militancy against God. Therefore, many quotes from "Star-Wars" are used, recognized by their brackets, e.g. (#). Because Identity's basic postulations are so absurd, some Identity people may not confess, let alone develop, them; instead, they emphasize the appealing aspects of their theories, dismissing the absurd. To Davis' credit, he does take the "bull by the horns" (no pun intended), and builds his logical theories on Identity's basic foundation.

Reading the reproduced doctrinal statement, one will find that the Identity authors represented herein do little more than provide their assumed "details" to fill the blanks within Identity's basic premises. We added paragraph numbers to the reproduced statement, and refer to them throughout this document, e.g. DS#. This author would say that a major difference in various Identity authors is each one's view of "salvation," which we will develop.

Those holding some of Identity's more extreme views, e.g. Ingersoll and Davis, are probably "disowned" by the more "moderate" in the movement. From this author's understanding, though extreme views may be denied by many, if those who deny the views would be consistent with their personal Anglo-Saxon theories, they would also have to come up with some equally ludicrous conclusions.

This author found it nearly impossible to keep to a "one time only" mention of Identity theories. Therefore, some points may be a little scattered, but are easily traced through the Index. If the reader will wade through the sometimes deep waters of the following study, he will find most of Identity's basic premises dealt with in the text. The Footnotes offer a great amount of pertinent information dealing with the subjects at hand.

The following study presupposes that the reader is either very familiar with or will look up the Scriptures referred to in this study. Anglo-Saxonism knows how to use words and how to change good Bible words from their obvious Biblical meaning to its own personal meanings, suggestions and opinions. It well knows and speaks "Conservative, Patriotic, Christian" speech, making it extremely dangerous to the cause of Christ. But the words used are according to private interpretation, e.g. Grace, q.v.

Appearances over Scripture

In opening, let us refer to a couple of important points: First, it would be a foolish waste of time to examine all Bible doctrines and words misused by the over all Anglo-Saxon movement. Second, Davis likely reflects the attitude of those fully committed to Anglo-Saxonism, several times dismissing any source not agreeing with his "suggested word meanings;" he said, the "doubting student" who flees to good linguistic authorities to question his teaching is only one burden a teacher must bear. (45)

We must conclude, therefore, that confronting those fully committed to Anglo-Saxonism with any material from any source, Bible, past or present theologians, word-studies, &c., not supporting their view of history will probably be useless. Davis says clearly that his understanding of history supports his theology; therefore, he will dismiss any criticism. 1.

The following critique attempts to restrict itself to the more obvious, basic, unBiblical fallacies in overall Anglo-Saxon theories, or this critique would be a full 66 chapters, Gen-Rev. Though we mention some points, e.g. America, Hitler, &c., we do not attempt to pursue Identity's historical assumptions past New Testament times. Moreover, the following is not meant to do the thinking for the reader. The author hopes the reader will be motivated to continue his own thorough investigation into the issues raised and any issues of importance. The following, though, should give those interested a starting place for their research.

Rules of Interpretation

We should also refer to The Rules of Bible Interpretation upon which the following study is based. The Bible student knows that a primary rule of interpretation is that implied doctrine cannot be accepted over the clear, plain teaching of God's Word. Thus implications and/or obscure passages can only be understood in agreement with, or in light of, clear, plain passages elsewhere in the inspired Word of God. No verse will stand on its own, and assumptions must be avoided. 2

While Davis explains, "Every doctrine I teach comes from two or more witnesses in the Bible," (22) his "thought-theology" (a term repeatedly used to degrade disagreement, e.g. 31) is woefully lacking Scriptural support whatsoever. Usually, he talks about Scripture teaching a particular point, but he has extremely little specific, supportive Scripture. Moreover, the vast majority of Scriptures used are totally void of, or contrary to, their context. Rather, Davis' supports some of his more non-traditional (we are being kind to a man who is not kind to those who disagree with him) doctrines with such statements as: "The Bible is clear to me.." and "There are two clues to my position..." (19), &c.3

It appears that Identity is guilty of what many Christians are, and is thereby able to present a Scriptural appearance. It ignores: first, the passages' context; second, to whom passages are directed; third, the situations the passages were given to deal with, i.e. the purpose of the passages, and fourth, the New Testament explanation of the Old Testament passages.

The major thrust of the following compares all-round Identity foundational teachings with Scripture, for if the foundation, i.e. basic theory, is corrupt, obviously the house built upon the foundation must be corrupt. 4 If the foundation, or center, of any theology does not hold, there is little need to examine what is built upon the broken foundation. Why examine for repair a broken building if its foundation is useless? Certainly, there will be exceptions, but if we do not seek to limit our study to an examination of major thoughts supporting Identity's house of theory, this study would result in a 66 chapter book, wearing both this author and the reader. 5.

Identity builds its Anglo-Saxon house on what, in its eyes, is happening in history, so the following chapter examines the very basis of its theories.

In making sweeping statements concerning Identity and its theories, we do not imply that all identifying with Identity hold to all the theories. We are herein dealing with GENERAL IDENTITY TEACHING as found basically in the reproduced "Kingdom-Identity's" doctrinal statement.

                                                                     
Footnotes

1. Davis does no more than dogmatically restate Identity's position; see DS15 for Identity's use of their understanding of history to establish theory. Undoubtedly, we are all guilty of subjecting Scripture to history to one degree or another. The avoidance of non-Identity documentation for Identity's theories seems to be typical of Identity writers ordinarily. See Documentation, lack of. Back

2. Overall, Identity writers seem to violate almost every law of Biblical Interpretation. See Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 1990, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 59506. Back

3. There is a well-worn comparison between 2 Sa 17:23/Mat 27:5 & Lk 10:37. Using Davis' "two or more witness" study method that is evident in his lessons, Christ's command to Go, and do thou likewise would indeed tell all readers to go hang themselves: the two witnesses being Mat 27:5 & Lk 10:37. Is this sound study method? The reader will find it extremely easy to destroy Identity's foundation simply by placing misused Scriptures back within their Scriptural context and accepting the Word of God as the final authority. Therefore, it is considered redundant for both the author and the reader to examine the context of every passage misused by Identity. Back

4. Rom 15:20; 1 Cor 3:10-15; Eph 2:20, &c. Back

5. We use Davis' basic theories that he built on Identity's theories to expose and counter Identity's theories. Davis' theories are so broken up that it is pointless to pursue them to his conclusions. See "Should we study Identity's theology" in Chapter One. Personally, the more this author read Davis' material, the more he had to agree with the young men who Davis says inspired the lessons: “By this time, the young Bible students were completely baffled..." (8) This author finds Davis' inconsistencies make his doctrine extremely difficult to follow. The more his material is read, the more baffling it becomes. But we will do our best to follow his shattered line of thought. Time and his broken system of theology will only permit our examination of some of his general theories rather than a good, systematic examination. So obviously, there may be points dealt with in the following which are not points of his theology. It is extremely easy to misunderstand what he is saying. Furthermore, every time "Star Wars" or other Identity material is considered, many more points contrary to Scripture are observed. Hence we must limit our study to a few foundation stones of Davis' house which he builds upon Anglo-Saxonism's theories. Unlike the inspired Scripture which presents God's Word against all dissention, Davis uses ridicule against opposing views. He is especially antagonistic toward pastors who see not things his way, clearly violating 2 Tim 2:23-26. Back


['Identifying Identity']   ['Home Page']   ['The Biblical Examiner']