Church Denomination Roots Out Racism

In the latest attempt by Christians to right the past, a Presbyterian denomination takes action against racist activism in its ranks… “The hope that a congregation and a denomination might prosper in this day and age while harboring a defense of racism — that’s just preposterous,” said Joel Belz, a former moderator of the PCA’s national governing body. “Presbyterianism in the South has to carry a special burden because early Presbyterians there sometimes defended what can only be described as racist perspectives. Because of those historical roots, we have an additional responsibility to be clear about what we believe on the subject.”

A Denomination Confronts its Past

The PCA, or Presbyterian Church in America, has been talking about race for a while. In 2004, it issued a position paper that not only denounced racism, but also took responsibility for its past role in promoting it. The paper acknowledged that, historically, the Presbyterian Church—from which the PCA later emerged—had wrongly stated that some races are inferior, that slavery is acceptable, and that racial segregation is justified. The paper went further: It recognized that racism has not been completely eradicated from the 340,000-member PCA, which in 1973 split from the larger, mainline Presbyterian church. “For years we have left unattended in our midst the vestiges of racism, and the reality of its raw presence within corners of our denomination,” it said.

Confederates in the Pulpit

Animated by extremist theology, a group of neo-Confederate zealots are seeking control of Southern churches. Key members of a white supremacist organization, the League of the South (LOS), are moving to take control of conservative churches around the South, prompting a possible split in a major Presbyterian denomination.

And still further…

    “To return to the Biblical doctrine, a wife is her husband’s help-meet…a true help-meet is a man’s counterpart, that a cultural, racial, and especially religious similarity is needed so that woman can truly mirror the man and his image.(pg. 351) Basic to family law is the inner bond of blood and faith.(pg. 360) The family was basic to Biblical society and culture; the godly family had to be perpetuated, and the ungodly family cut off. The bastard was cut of from church and state, insofar as any legal status was concerned, to the tenth generation (Deut.23:2). He might be a godly man but he was not a citizen. (pg.375)…bastards could not be recognized as legitimate…The creation and perpetuation of godly families is thus basic to the law (pg.380). Biblical law is designed to create a familistic society…[marital infidelity is] treason to the family and introduces an alien loyalty to the home, as well as alien seed (pg.395).’In the trustee period, adultery, along with one or two other crimes, is the most infamous act against the whole society-kinship group…’(by Zimmerman) (pg.396) ‘Adultery…threatens the security of the bloodline…’(Cole) (pg. 397) A third type of divorce is implied, enforced by authorities, as with Nehemiah, in cases of consanguity and mixed-marriages: Mixed marriages banned: Deut. 7:1-3; cf. Ex.34:12-16; Num. 25:6-8. (pg. 403) Marriage is held in faithfulness to the creation ordinance.” (pg. 409) (R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law)

Now, would someone post this on that ridiculous forum and let us be done with the matter?

The main arguments seem to be fallacious, consisting mostly of ad hominems and tu quoques.  There is one main “historical” argument that goes:

“Miscegenation was practiced by an overwhelming amount of Biblical characters, and therefore, is to be accepted wholesale.”

This is the first time I’ve ever lost friends because of my convictions, though, judging from the rhetoric in that forum, perhaps I haven’t lost any friends yet, (I couldn’t ever imagine saying those sorts of things to any friend of mine.)

It’s discouraging.

Thanks,

AM

Miscegenation is sanctioned in the Mosaic Law, and approved of in the narratives of Scripture. God permitted an Israelite man to take a wife from among “their enemies”. Moreoever, we have examples of foreign wives being taken from outside of the family of Israel by Salmon, David, Boaz, Moses, and others.

Israel also had laws given by God by which Egyptians and Edomites could be naturalized, and join in full membership in the civil as well as ecclesiastical government. The law concerning the Passover explains the one, the law concerning naturalization in Deuteronomy 23 explains the other. These laws are backed by the narratives of Scripture, such as a Jebusite joining Israel, a Hittite holding high military office, a whole group of Canaanites being joined in covenant with Israel (which God obviously sanction, and cursed Israel when Saul slew them), and various other laws and circumstances in the same vein. The “stranger within their gates” is an ongoing theme of the OT (e.g. the 4th Cmd.).

Malachi explains exactly what marrying a strange woman entails:

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all(T) one Father? Has not(U) one God created us? Why then are we(V) faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11Judah has been(W) faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. For(X) Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god. 12May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob any descendant[e] of the man who does this, who(Y) brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!

Note: the basic sin is religious; the basic family is God’s family: God is the Father and Creator of this family, not Jacob. The daughter is a “daughter of a foreign god.” THAT is the basic sin of unequal yoking.

Moreover, David married the daughter of a Canaanite King, as did Solomon, yet Solomon committed the sin described in Malachi, and David didn’t.

Simply pretending like you know what you’re taking about doensn’t help your cause, but makes you look like a fool.

God has commanded that we call no man common or unclean. If ever anyone should be called common or unclean, it is you and me Scott. Filthy idol worshipping dogs of the Gentiles. What right have you to call anyone else unclean, and forbid brethren to dwell together in unity in the Church of Christ, in a Holy Commonwealth, or in holy matrimony? This is the basic heresy of man’s nationalistic pride, condemned aptly by Rush:

“Paul, in Galatians 3:27, says, ‘For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ Jesus have put on Christ.’ They are now clothed with Christ, i.e., have become family members of Christ and have taken on His character. Their old status, whether a Jew or a Gentile, is rendered useless and void, ‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature’ (Gal. 6:15). The Judaizers wanted to use old wineskins; Paul insists that their own Scriptures nullify their nationalistic wineskin.” R.J. Rushdoony, Romans & Galatians (Ross House Books, 1997), p.87

If you do not deal with these passages, and explain by kinist gymnastics how each passage doesn’t mean what it says, your future posts will be deleted.

I’m not sure how we missed this one (or did we? perhaps I’m blind, but I didn’t see a reference when I did a search). It’s a truly logical takedown of the whole Hammy mess.

Well worth reading.

Laurel

Director Oliver Stone belittled the Holocaust during a shocking interview with the Sunday Times today, claiming that America’s focus on the Jewish massacre was a product of the “Jewish domination of the media.”
The director also defended Hitler and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and railed against the “powerful lobby” of Jews in America.

Stone said that his upcoming Showtime documentary series “Secret History of America,” seeks to put Hitler and Communist dictator Joseph Stalin “in context.”

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Laurel

Really looking forward to publishing this number, marking a return to a regular publishing schedule. The schedule is TBD, but will be no less than biannual, and no more frequently than quarterly, considering it is an all volunteer effort. In order to begin to pay honoraria to our writers, we will begin charging for the Review sometime in 2011, after we’ve established that it is a going concern again.

Sherrod tendered her resignation Monday.

“The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing, but he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him,” Sherrod said.

“I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough,” Sherrod said. “So that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him.”

———————————-

Under pressure due to Breitbart’s exposure of blatant race bias in NAACP leader’s reactions to the Sherrod speech, the organization has announced it will “investigate” itself. I have one question. How can a racially exclusive advocacy organization root out racism in its own ranks? It would have to fold its tent entirely, would it not? This kind of blatant bias is common among blacks, who on average are virulently “racist.”