The Fall of Little Geneva Raises Questions
The news broke recently that Kinist site Little Geneva was hacked and had to close up shop. “Who is Mrs. Binoculars” (funny how they hide their names) tells a wholly different story. While I personally found Mr. Seabrook’s views to be worthy of great shame, the manner in which he was brought down appeared to be the proverbial stooping to the same level. This is not to say that we Christians should not speak out against the hate that was spewed by Seabrook and men of his ilk, but it does bring to question what tactics we ought to employ. We might be right, but is bullying a bully following the mind and model of Christ?
Update: After delving a little further into mrsbinoculars.com I discovered that it contains articles by Matthew Chancey. I apologize for the assumption about anonymity. Reading through the site makes this comment thread from last year come flashing back. I pray that Gospel reconciliation would take place on all sides of this (sadly) public conflict.
I think that the answers are unfortunately fairly simple. If the actions performed against them were indeed done by folks who claim to be followers of Christ then they let their base instincts rule their reactions – revealing that we tend to follow our flesh more than our faith.
While evil should not be responded to with evil, it is the easy response since it satiates pride so quickly.
“This is not to say that we Christians should not speak out against the hate that was spewed by Seabrook and men of his ilk,” Puke. While I do not question your salvation, it’s funny how you “brothers” do plenty of “speaking out” but never any speaking toward any of the views expressed by Seabrook and the other Kinist Christians.
@stelmodad: That’s a good analysis.
@Matthew: I’m not exactly sure where you’re coming from, but it sounds to me like you are arguing semantics (against…toward?). Can you unpack the differences a little?
Also, the fact that this is the first Kinist related post on this blog is not because I don’t want to (or am not willing to) engage in a discussion of the issues that Kinist Christians raise. Could it be that I haven’t done enough research yet to speak intelligently on it; could it be that I think Kinists do enough damage to themselves that they are better off being ignored? Maybe it’s one, the other or both. Either way, the rightness/wrongness of Kinism isn’t the point of this post and you know it, brother.
“This is not to say that we Christians should not speak out against the hate that was spewed by Seabrook and men of his ilk.”
What hate? Why does a desire to remain alive imply hatred?
Are you implying that it is natural for those who wish to remain alive to hate those who oppose that wish? If so, what is wrong with that hatred?
@ben: Perhaps I am guilty of coming across too harshly. While I think that “Kinism” is simply a euphamism for “White Supremacy,” it may not be right to simply brand Kinists as a counterfeit Christian cult/hate-mongering group (as is the typical response of mainstream Evangelicals). In fact, to just ignore them, or worse, demonize them, would lend a certain sense of legitimacy to their ideology.
While it will draw more attention to the Kinist cause, I am willing to comment on why I think Kinism is wrong (more formally in a later post). You may have some legitimate grievances, so I’ll give them a fair hearing (and hopefully point you in a better direction). That said, I am not going to commit to debating every pro-Kinist who visits this blog (either in this thread or another).
Scott, if you really want to a big favor for the kinists out go right ahead and write about them, in all your ignorance. You obviously know even less about kinism than I do (and that’s not very much). You’ve already made the error of equating kinism with white supremacy. A lot of people have already helped out the kinists because they don’t do their homework before writing about them.
Kinism may represent things that we may not like, but don’t make the same mistake that others have and think that kinists are ignorant people, or people of low IQ because of inbreeding. Don’t call kinists “white supremacists.” They’re not, although a lot of them are probably white separatists.
Some of them may be racists, but a lot aren’t, and many racists aren’t kinists. Take for example Doug Phillips. Apparently Phillips is a racist, but recently he and his friends have been attacking Little Geneva. Phillips is a racist but he doesn’t like kinists. The whole thing to me seems very confusing, like the pot calling the kettle black.
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/01/joe-friday-on-doug-phillips-and-matt.html
@Josh: When I said…
It was my intent to convey that…
It was poorly worded, agreed, but I certainly don’t hold to any of the assumptions about kinists that you alluded to in your comment. And you can bet that I will put plenty of thought and research into whatever more I write on this topic.
“Kinism” is just an expression of the desire — shared by all healthy living things — to remain alive. It could just as well be denominated “Lifism” or “Life-ism”, except that “Kinism” emphasizes the connectedness of human life.
We do not live in isolation but instead live as members of families and communities, and the concern of a healthy human is not merely with his personal life but also with the life of his community.
“Kinism” is not an expression of aggression but is instead an iteration of the principle of self-ownership applied to humans and human communities. That is to say, it is morally sound.
“Kinism” rightly recognizes the propriety of discrimination, a fundamental principle of survival. Living things assemble resources and then must, with respect to those resources, discriminate between self and non-self if they are to survive. This is precisely the function of the immune system (immunology has been described as the science of self/non-self discrimination), and no one seems to object to the practice of discrimination in that context.
And there is no principled reason to object to such discrimination in other contexts for either a specific human or a community of humans that constitutes a “self” in its own right. Humans and human communities have a right to the resources they assemble. Humans and human communities have a right to defend themselves against aggression. Humans and human communities — even Christians and communities of Christians — have a right to live.
Do you disagree?
@Ben: What would a Samaritan Kinist do if he was faced with a Jew on the side of the road? What sorts of survival discrimintations would kick in? More important work to do? It might be a trap? Shouldn’t he have known better than to travel the Jericho road alone?
Ben says,
“Kinism” rightly recognizes the propriety of discrimination, a fundamental principle of survival. Living things assemble resources and then must, with respect to those resources, discriminate between self and non-self if they are to survive.”
Well, if this is the definition of kinism –iteration of the principle of **self-ownership** applied to humans and human communities– It is in essence communal self-ism — then it is the opposite of Christianity, (which is not surprising, since self-ism is the self-described philosophical belief of Satanism).
Christianity, on the other hand, repudiates selfism and teaches selflessness:
1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 1Cr 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his ***own life**** also, he cannot be my disciple.
Mat 16:24 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Cynthia,
Christianity is not a suicide pact.
A suicide pact is exactly what it is, Ehud, if we have the guts to really be like Him:
Jesus said,
Mat 20:22 Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
AND
Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord.
Hmm. Okay Cynthia, I’m going to approach your comments with an extra helping of interpretive generosity. That is, I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don’t really believe the things which you’ve written above.
If what you call Christianity is as you say, a “suicide pact”, it isn’t Christian in the least, but rather a death cult. All suicidal tendencies are the masochistic attempt to strike at the Creator in effigy, via his image-bearer, man.
By contrast, Kinism, as an historic Chritian doctrine, affirms life for all peoples with no overtones of Marxist-genocide as offered in your posts.
Certainly, you’ve ammassed scripture to defend your position and I won’t ignore that but I ask you to look again at all those refernces; every one is speaking in a different sense than the topic addressed in this thread. Where the topic of this thread is Kinism (the covenantal priority of one’s relatives over that of more remote relations and ethnicities), you’ve smuggled in passages having to do with the priority of Christ over our families, the mortification of the “old man”, et.al. but none regarding our responsibilities to family, the alien, one’s own people, etc. I’ll assume you’ve simply made a series of categorical errors and attribute it no ill-will as such.
For refference, here are a couple of examples of some scriptures which speak to the topic at hand:
Rom.9:2-4
“2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen[a] according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;…”
1st Tim.5:7-8
“7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
The bible has many, many more clear passages regarding our responsibilities toward men– both our immediate kinsmen and otherwise. But Christianity most certainly is not a resolution to wipe out our own people! All such sentiments are at odds with the biblical concept of family, nation, and the creation ordinance.
John 10:10
“The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”
Definitely not a suicide pact.
@Cynthia & Ehud “The Left-Handed Judge” would:
I was content to let you two duke it out, but it seems as though there has been a lull in the discussion. I do not want anyone to think that I have forgotten about this topic. Besides, I get a lot of search hits on this post and therefore feel compelled to chime in further.
I have two things for you to ponder relative to the course of the thread. The first is from Mark 12 when the scribe asked Jesus which commandment is the most important of all.
1) Why are those two commandments intertwined? 2) Who do you think Jesus meant when he said neighbor?
The second thing to think about comes from Matthew 16 right after Jesus foretold his death and resurrection.
1) What does it mean to deny oneself? 2) How does “denial of self” relate to following Jesus? If we are to model Christ in our lives, how does willful death and gracious resurrection fit into that picture?
—
@Everyone:
I am still doing my research into the broader subject raised in this post. Frankly, I find my brain short-cicuiting as I try to follow the logic of Kinism: they speak of historic Protestantism, which is a New Testament phenomenon, but harken back to Old Testament law that is fulfilled and transformed in Christ. It seems that they are jettisoning a HUGE chunk of the NT, namely, Paul’s lengthy arguments with the Judaizers about the Gentiles needing to become Jews in order to be part of God’s people.
My initial thoughts, which are in need of further refinement, center around and/or climax in the whole “no Jew, no Gentile; no man, no woman in Christ” (i.e. God is making a new race “in Christ”). So, for example, consider one of the interracial couples that I know–an American Anglo man and a Japanese woman. If we are to speak with theological accuracy, because they are both “new creations in Christ;” they are no longer Anglo and Asian, but are . . . well . . . Christ-ian.
Thanks for stepping in Scott. It’s nice to meet the proprietor.
You’ve brought a lot to bear on this discussion and while all of it is related, I believe some of it to be misappropriated. I too intend to write a little something on the subject of Kinism in the near future but in the meantime my answers will by necessity be short ones.
Mark 12:
Mark 12 is an important aspect of the Kinist paradigm as it is one of Jesus’ many endorsements of Theonomy. Its actually a “double-quoteâ€, if you will — as Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy Chpt.6, Deuteronomy is offering a synthesis of God’s Law as elaborated in Exodus 20. As a synthesis of both tablets of the Law Deut.6 and Mark 12 conjoin duties toward our fellow men with duties toward God himself. Afterall, it is God’s Law which teaches us HOW to love our neighbor and God’s standards of justice, which is to say ethics and civics.
If someone denies God’s Law as the standard for love and justice they run headlong into Francis Schaeffer’s as of yet unanswered indictment of Antinomian thought: “By what standard?†Common sense? Leading of the Spirit? Both are amorphous appeals to an undefined standard. The only answer is God’s Law.
You also asked what I thought Jesus meant by “neighborâ€: Well, Jesus seems to indicate by the “Good Samaritan†parable that anyone who behaves in a neighborly way is infact our neighbor. Obviously the Canaanites were not to be regarded as such. Likewise, we have certain groups today who generally (though I wouldn’t say categorically) demonstrate themselves to be, putting it mildly…other than neighborly.
Mattew.16:
This is a soteriological passage. It deals specifically with our submission to Christ in a “proto-Pascal’s Wagerâ€. Thereby it may be said to speak of the first tablet of the Law (duties toward God), though it isn’t really speaking to issues of the second tablet (duties toward men).
You also mentioned Galatians 3:
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal.3:26-29)
The problem here is that if you take this passage as speaking in a physical rather than soteriological sense that you wind up expunging not only race but gender difference also! So unless you believe the Bible teaches total egalitarian Marxism you cannot follow that line of interpretation. Consequently, if you retain a belief of federal stratification between the sexes you cannot take this verse to be the physical denial of race, only one of a soteriological nature. And witness if you will the fact that “the Bride of Christ†(his Church) are all (regardless of physical race) spiritually declared the “seed of Abrahamâ€. That is to say that even Jesus’ spiritual union to His Bride is said to necessarily, and quite mystically, be of His own people —children of Abraham. Even Jesus strictly marries His own and turns away all who are not the true “seed of Abraham†from His wedding feast.
You also suggested that Kinism “Jettisons a HUGE chunk of the NTâ€:
At this point I admit my confusion ‘cause I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Paul condemns the Judaizers for their perpetual attempts at making other races of men into cultural and ethnic Jews. They insisted that one could not be saved outside of being a Jew; Which by the way is a derogatory term throughout the NT. The word “Jew†is categorically used by Jesus and the Apostles negatively. By contrast, Jesus and His Apostles are called “Hebrewsâ€, “Israelites†and “the seed of Abraham†but never “Jewsâ€. It’s really a slur which harkens back to Judas in his betrayal of Christ and Judah before him who sold his brother Joseph into Egyptian slavery.
All that said, I’m glad to see that you’re interacting with these historic doctrines. They were the default position of virtually all Christians prior to the secularization of the 1960s. If we say that they are wrong, we are infact saying that the true Christian doctrine of race came into the church not by way of Biblical study but by way of Secular-Humanist influence from without; a precarious resolution to be sure.
To be honest, its unlikely that I would have engaged this forum if not for some of the self-hating, anti-White sentiment in this thread. Cynthia’s words were rather horrifying. They are the stuff of genocide but such “White people have a duty to kill themselves†talk is now sadly mainstream. Its just another form of Gnosticism but its one which directly threatens my family for whom God has entrusted me as protector and provider. Anyone who breathes such threats against your family and your people must be confronted. Their words are potent venom when garnished with pseudo-Christian language.
I’m watching you Ehud. The problem with the whole debate, as I have seen it and experienced it, is that the Evan-jellyfish always skip careful use of the scriptures and throw around slogans. Meanwhile, the Kinnists tend to create doctrines out of thin air or more accurately, create laws that are not in the text, weak inference upon weak inference.
Another problem is that we don’t even have a starting place. Most Kinnists are of the theonomic sort, while the Evangelicals or Lutheranized-Calvinists don’t have any law to use except that which they derive from their own minds or like Cynthia, they misuse texts. Basically everybody is misusing texts.
I enter this as a liberal kinnist, according to Ehud, and as a theonomist…that is a Christian. I am married to a non-white woman and I am white. I have mixed race children. So, as the head of the family I take strong-Kinnist beliefs as something of a threat to my clan, my sons.
The Bible doesn’t really deal with racism as it is currently defined and Paul seems to take positions that are at odds with 20th C. views of race. From Abraham to Paul there is a natural and non-sinful preference, in marriage and policy, for ones own clan. The Bible nowhere condemns or even mentions a concept of “racism”. This is probably because most of us aren’t sure what a biblical definition of racism is, so we can’t quite find reference to it in the text. Kinnism can be racist and it can be principled, I only contend that it is not a mandatory duty for Christians to stay racially distinct, that is not intermarry. Similarly, there is no reason you could not follow Abraham’s policy of marrying his son Isaac off to a girl from far off Ur. Why? Because he wanted somebody like them, Abrahamites (read semites), for his son. That is, if you want to be a seperatist, its permissable and, we will yet see if, desirable. Only its not mandatory.
As to cultural/racial suicide. Cynthia, come on! You must know that you have piss poorly proof texted. Rubbing to verses together isn’t magic. We die to ourselves, that doesn’t mean that we stop eating or using crosswalks. You know exactly what those verses are about, don’t go beyond what the Word says. If you fail in that restriction you will find yourself with no ammunition against the Kinnist when he conjures up doctrines.
Paul loved his people, there was no sin in that. I love and mourn for the degeneration of my race in Europe this very day. They’ve become disgusting. My service is due to the Lord and to my family first, but there are other concerns that are legit. The Bible does not seem to circumscribe the lineage of a chosen wife. It does tell us that she must be a Christian. Beyond that it seems obvious that people will marry, and it is often advisable to marry, within your race. I respect and even honor that choice. Seeking the advancement of your race is no different than being a national patriot. That is, does anybody think its a sin to work toward the growth and health of the USA? Does that really differ in principle from working toward the growth and health of white folk? No! Its not racist either. A racist is one who mistreats, maligns or otherwise is unfair to another individual or group because of their race. Kinnists often are racists, but I know Ehud is not and there is nothing inherent in the philosophy that is racist. It may be legalistic in its extension of law beyond what the text says, but its not racist.
I think we’ll all come a lot closer in understanding each other if we look at America on Sunday morning. Whites go to their suburban churchs, Latins to theirs, Asians to theirs and Blacks to theirs. The question is: Is that racism? Or is it just normal?
It seems to me that “love your neighbor” presupposes a distinction between family and neighbor. Is it fair to say that kinism recognizes other broader distinctions, such as race, culture, etc?
Yeah, Jesus seems to allude to “neighbor” being a matter which extenuates itself beyond immediate relation.
Kinism recognizes the biblical call of varying degrees of covenantal priority between different people; that is, my children are to be of a greater concern to me than the children of others. With the greater responsibility comes greater priority– package deal. One’s love of their own in no way equates hatred toward others. If it did, we would all be guilty of hating all children whom we ourselves didn’t sire but everybody knows that’s just crazy talk. Really, if you’re a Christian, you are also a Kinist– the only question is to what degree? Its a matter of how consistent one is willing to be.
Oh and BigCalvin, I’m still kickin’ around some ideas of how to respond to your post– be patient, I’ll get around to it.
Big Calvin, you couldn’t be more wrong about the Bible as being silent on race. I am an apostolic universal Christian; as is we use the Septuagint. In the Septuagint there is a verse that backs up the Tower of Babel:
“Every beast loveth his like, and every man loveth his neighbor. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like.”
God created the races of men. He created them to be seperate. And what God has made, let no man destroy. The Tower of Babel is not the creation of the Mosaic Law and Jesus does not nullify what His Father has done. As God implanted the desire to cleave to one’s like, He also imparted a spirit of dislike, a dislike of what is different. This is Nature.
For more see my website under the Lyceum.
Doug Phillips is a racist? Is that the Vision Forum Doug Phillips? The home school leader? I don’t understand. If that’s true then a lot of home school families really need to know that. We’re home schoolers and we didn’t know. How do you know he’s a racist? It’s not like I’ve ever heard him use the “N” word or anything like that.
Martha,
I wouldn’t worry about Doug Phillips. Racism is a charge that gets thrown around a lot. People rarely feel the need to back it up. Doug Wilson has pointed out that any culture warrior worth his salt will at some point be accused of racism.
Martha,
As I understand it, the accusation of Racism levelled at Doug Phillips comes from his public praise of R.L.Dabney and his “Defense of Virginia and the Confederacy”.
The truth is that virtually all of the noteables in the Constitution Party espouse the same sentiments, be it McAtee, Einwechter, Baldwin, Peroutka or Phillips (Howard & Doug)– what everyone now refers to in hushed tones as “Racism” is more often than not simply the societal vestiges of Christianity.
Don’t take my word for it; read from any of the historic Christian Exegetes on the matter.
Our people are simply suffering from the Communist indoctrination of pure Egalitarianism which can in no way be called Christian.
As to the “N-word”, I don’t make a habit of using it either but only out of a desire to give no undue offense, not because there’s something evil about the word itself. What is evil is the irrational, iconic veneration of Blacks in the elevation of certain titles to “that-which-shall-not-be-named” status. The “N-word” is ony one example. The once proper “Negro” is now similarly banned; as is “Darkie”. Even the once P.C. “Afro-American” is now considered offensive and has been replaced by “African-American”, a term which is incidentally an obvious afront to America in its expression of African identity over American. Really, when it comes to Blacks, any and all reference to them by Whites is considered “Racist”. What’s an Anglo-American Caucazoid White to do?
Wheeler you quoted: “Every beast loveth his like, and every man loveth his neighbor. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like.”
Do you really think that proves your point? Cleave to his like, means people like those that are like them. As you stated, that’s nature. I am not at all convinced that this puts in play anything about race, except that people like those that like them. Wow! Is that news? It certainly doesn’t look like a command. I believe that is call an “is/ought” fallacy. But if it were a command, it doesn’t say “racially like”, it only says “like”. That’s a huge jump. Furthermore, though I don’t know where you got the quote from specifically, I also says that every man loveth his neighbor. Perfect, I love my neighbor and his pretty brown daughter. We’re both Christians, he gives her to me in marriage….wa’la…an interracial couple that fits that quote and violates no commandments.
Did I ever say that Jesus un-did the Father? Strange that you would label me that way. Similarly, you must at least admit, though its not my argument at this point, that the New Covenant is New in some way.
As for Babel…it is normal for Kinnists to read into Babel what is not in Genesis. What was the sin at Babel? From Genesis: “a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” They wanted to make a name for themselves. (hubris/pride /)A tower, a city that would reach the heavens. Does God clearly tell us that it was the amalgamation of of races that was the problem? No, confusion of language was his method of remedying the problem. The sheer fact that God acknowledged their power and unity does not make their unity a sin. It was their unity to do evil. God sought to break up the conspiracy. To find a prohibition against being together with other pigmented Christians is quite a leap. I recognize that the debate doesn’t lay at the foot of this Tower.
Is the issue of race adressed by the historic church? We seem to be obsessed with it. What I am curious about is whether races and ethnicities are part of the created order or a result of the fall. Should the differences between the races be something that the church strives to overcome as part of its redemptive work, or should they be celebrated, much in the same way we celebrate gender differences. To maintain the distinctiveness of the genders is not to undo that “in Christ, there is no male or female.”
I thought the verse was pretty self-explanatory. If you have trouble comprehending it then I can’t help you.
Ever hear of the agrarian saying, “Birds of a feather flock together”? Now this is a True statement. Would not all truth harmonize? Is not natural truth and Revealed truth be the same? If I said, “Birds of a feather flock together”, wouldn’t it be the same as saying, “”Every beast loveth his like, and every man loveth his neighbor. All flesh consorteth according to kind, and a man will cleave to his like.”
Oh, and by the way Socrates 2300 years ago in Plato’s Republic uses the saying “Birds of a feather” to apply to human society. Aristotle says the same thing when he says, “Man is a social animal”. Other than the cat, all the animals that man has domesticated has been herd animals.
Now I worked on plenty of farms and ranches, Nature teaches these laws of social groupings. I even watch the National Geographic that shows that not even lion prides, which all are lions, don’t get along. So you are telling me Calvin, that Christianity is about destroying and usurping the Natural Order that God Created? It is the job of Christianity to play God, and re-create the world according to its liking?
Race existed before Christianity and will exist forever.
Please show me how the verse is talking about races? Can you please at least do that? It is clear as a general statement, but to apply it the way you want to is not clear. I am not obtuse. This just looks like errant proof texting.
I did not say that true-truths from nature differ from revealed truth. All truth is God’s truth, but deriving commands from nature is shaky at best. I prefer the clear text of scripture over sin obscured extrapolations from nature. (I believe that is a quote from Bahnsen)
Now as to the altering of the created order, I think you have more work to do to prove that what you claim is the created order. Again, we move back to the unanswered question of the “is/ought” fallacy. By the way, in a restricted way, Christianity does overthrow the natural order. “No man seeks after God.” Hence, Calvinism emphasizes just how unnatural love for God is. Please don’t go on about this comment…it will turn into a rabbit trail. Just address the thing that you have to prove: That God commands the seperation of the races. If you can’t prove that from the text, then I don’t have anything to respond to anymore and we can put this to bed. If you can, perhaps I will repent of my marriage and cast out my children, ala Ezra, Nehemiah. I wonder if that will get me excommunicated though. I suppose I’d first have to have received a command from God to kill every living thing in the land of Mexico. I guess I’m stuck with the wife and kids…Maybe I’ll just obey that text and love my neighbors…especially those of my like/kind: Christians.
I think what Mr. Wheeler is aiming at is the fact that the congress of like kinds was specifically laid out in the first two chapters of Genesis when God proclaimed that they should reproduce “after their own kind”. Clearly then there exists a certain moral imperative in the created order. In this case what “is” be exactly what “ought” be– no fallacy whatever.
Likewise, Jesus refers us to the creation when inquired of by the Pharisees on the issue of marriage in Matthew 19. He chides them for not accepting God’s template for the institution in Genesis. If we then take seriously Christ’s rebuke of the Jews on this matter, we must resolve ourselves to accept the first marriage as a normative template– insofar as is possible of course. What that ultimately means for contemporary marriage is that under the guidence of our fathers (after the example of the first Father– God) we must seek wives who are “appropriate helpmeets” to us. Now, this word “Helpmeet” apparently means “mirror” or “reflection”. This reflective quality of Eve relative to Adam was of such priority that God deigned not to create her as mates were made for bird and kine– from the ground; rather, she had to come from a certain proximate commonality of flesh to Adam. It says in chapt.2 that “for this reason shall a man leave his father and mother…for the two are become one flesh.” That is to say that marriage is everafter an echoe of that first union.
All that said, it is difficult to imagine how one does justice to the original design if they opt to wed without an eye toward the bible’s definition of “Helpmeet”– that is, in acknowledgement of God’s prescription of heritable commonality.
I’m sure you’ll push and pull on this thesis but I haven’t time at the moment to anticipate any responses– work, work, work– you understand. But let me leave you with some quotes from some folks whose thinking I know you respect:
“…that from that one individual a multitude might be propagated and that this fact should teach mankind to preserve a harmonious unity in plurality. Furthermore, the fact that a woman was made for the first man from his own side shows us clearly how affectionate should be the union of man and wife.†(Augustine~ City of God, book XII, Chpt. 28)
“If it is a source of joy and glory to men to have children like to themselves–and it is more agreeable to have begotten an offspring then when the remaining progeny responds to the parent with like lineaments–how much greater is the gladness in God the Father, when any one is so spiritually born that in his acts and praises the divine eminence of race is announced!” ~ St. Cyprian, church father and Kinist (Treatise No.10 on Envy and Jealousy)
9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. [a]
10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.
11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. (Deut.22:9-11)
“Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). ‘Helpmeet’ means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association.” — R.J. Rushdoony comments on 2 Cor. 6:14
“Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambition have, oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have past their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary. For though men, by raging upon earth, do seem to assault heaven, that they may overthrow God’s providence, yet they are enforced, whether they will or no, rather to establish the same. Therefore, let us know that the world is so turned over through divers tumults, that God doth at length bring all things unto the end which he hath appointed.”
(Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 17:26)
“The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers…”(Gresham Machen—Christianity and Liberalism)
Sorry about the cut and paste job– like I said, I’m running lean on time just now.
But no worries, I’m gonna put together a position paper on the matter soon.
I know Ehud…still weak. Sorry to be snide, but really do you think that’s persuasive. First of all, to the is/ought fallacy… that was being applied specifically to that passage. There can be descriptive passages and there can be passages that command. This one seems descriptive, rather than a command. Besides, wasn’t the “description” in Genesis 1 a description of how the world works. Hence, bears don’t give birth to nor mate with dogs. God moves on, the next day he created man. There he didn’t even mention kind, but presumable there was no risk of bestiality at that point. Interesting. Chapter 2 doesn’t mention it, what this may point to is that there were no female humans on the earth. Adam’s kind is a human with a vagina. It’s still an is/ought fallacy to say that people like to be with those that are like them…to saying that they must not be with those that are not like them…in some specific quality. Even when God causes something to happen, we have to do our homework and see if that state is a universal moral imperative or simply a circumstantial command: i.e…kill the Cannanites. Is that circumstantial or universal? What part of that is universal? We should go from the clear to the unclear. The passages and stretched inferences used are all catagorically unclear. You know this, but you buck against it all the more.
As for a woman reflecting her husband, the argument that she should look like him is a whole bunch of nothing. It is to place a premium on cosmetic differences. You know it, but you still press it. Having no actual command in the Bible of course forces you to insert race into passages that give no indication that they are about race. It is really more like wishful thinking. Please meet the mentioned task: Where does the Bible forbid interracial marriage? I know, it nevers says trinity…but there are plenty of passages that make the doctrine clear. “Inference” is not license to put the meaning you like in. There are good inferences, bad inferences, and shaky inferences. Good ones are supported by “logical” inferences and sometimes even deductive. Bad ones are when you assume as a premise what you intend to prove. Shaky ones…well…somewhere inbetween…tenuous inductive and cumulative arguments.
There is no logical reason to assume that all things being equal, pigmentation and skull structure is a major component of “congenial”.
The fact that you can quote Rushdoony, Calvin, Machen, et al…, does not prove your point. It only proves that they agree on some point with you. You know this. The hard work would be to prove this thesis with the text of scripture first. You sound a lot like Tony. Seriously, quoting people who agree with you, without any actual exegetical argument is a waste of bandwidth.
I will exercise my excuse at this point: I am in a law school class while typing this and I should be paying more attention. My attention is split, so I may have made some serious blunders in responding to the man with a hypertrophed left forearm.
By the way, chapter and verse, tongue and cheek, please list the moral imparatives of the created order. You know, the unwritten Ten Commandments of Nature. It looks like you are inching closer and closer to your true thesis: Of course races shouldn’t intermarry because it is so obvious…err…its in the created order…err… unwritten commands concealed in passages of the Bible. Bring it on Michael Drosnin!!!
If Jesus’ indictment of the Jews in Matt.19 isn’t prescriptive I don’t know what is. He’s forthrightly telling them that the creation ordinance is the standard for marriage.
If you still consider the specifics of the first marriage descriptive only rather than prescriptive also I think you argue with Jesus on the matter. And if you’re unwilling to acknowledge presciption where God has so clearly called us to take a thing as templative example you wind up foregoing our Knoxian understanding of Rom.13 for it surely has less in it to lend toward prescription than had Gen.1 & 2.
As for any “Unwritten Ten Commandments”, I in no way intend to insinuate such a thing. I do however intend to acknowledge that there exist many applications of the decalogue which we must reason out of the scripture as a whole. We nolonger fence rooftops but we do fence swimming pools for the sake of stray children. Are we therein partaking in a set of “Unwritten Commandments”? No. They are written plainly enough. But again, this is Christ’s issue with the Jews in Matt.19 who refused to acknowledge the necessary implications of God’s example for the family. Any violation of the institution as exemplified in the creation would then accordingly violate some measure of the decalogue also. To the issue in dispute I beleive the fifth and perhaps the seventh commandments are transgressed in mixed-marriage. If there is in some way a disregard for the Father (earthly or heavenly)in our bridegrooming it also undermines the concept of marital fidelity.
You could persist in calling it “weak” but if so it must be asked what connection you beleive Deut.22:9-11 has to the Ten commandments(?). First or second tablet? You may defer to say its ceremonial but if you do you’ll be arguing with the Apostle Paul who identifies it as pertaining to marriage in 2 Cor. 6:14.
9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. [a]
10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.
11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. (Deut.22:9-11)
It’s an acknowledgement of what Rushdoony called “congeniality” of kind as a directive amidst the creation. As God’s Viceroy on earth man’s role is in part to categorize and steward the myriad differentiations in the world. Again, where Moses applies it to a mundane swath of biological things, Paul applies it to Marriage. And…
1st Tim.5:7-8
“7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
…Paul reinforces the notion of ethnic responsibility to the families of our nativity.
Out of time. Gotta go—
If Jesus’ indictment of the Jews in Matt.19 isn’t prescriptive I don’t know what is. He’s forthrightly telling them that the creation ordinance is the standard for marriage. He’s telling them that that is the way God made it. Sure! He’s also quoting Genesis 2:24. How do we know what this creation ordinance consists of? You have to explain a rule. The specifics of the first marriage don’t tell us a wit about race. You just read it in with the word “kind”. As for Romans, it is surely more clear on gov’t relations than Genesis is on race relations…since you still haven’t shown how Genesis is even dealing with the issue.
How is mixed marriage a violation of the 5th and 6th commandments?
Saying it doesn’t make it so. Come on Edud…marriage to a non-white is a sin if my father is white? I suppose it could be a kind of sin if I disobey him when he commands me not to marry a non-white, but it may also be a sin for him to command it. That begs the whole discussion….
As for mixing fibers and mixing with unbelievers…that I agree is a nice way to make the inference. I agree totally. Apparently Paul is explaining the meaning of these seperatness laws: Prefiguring of the strict seperation of believers from non-believers. The Sons of God, the Race of the Redeemed…must never be yoked with the Sons of Men or the pagans.
On Congeniality:
Moses to Paul: veggies to marriage. Good. We agree. The thing we don’t agree on is that race is an essential difference such that mixing it is a sin. You claim that it is just like mixing with an unbeliever and not honoring your father. That is the thing yet to be proved E-hood.
Now I’ll leave in your Timothy citation. It’s good.
1st Tim.5:7-8
“7 And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Again, you are begging the question. Those of his own household means those of his own household. He goes from “his own” to “his own household”. Wider to narrower. His own is the important point. His own could be expanded indefinitely. Where does it stop? Paul means relatives, then relatives under your care. Relatives could be expanded indefinitely, but we all know who relatives are. In fact, many have relatives of other races. Both you and I do. Again question begging.
Did Moses marry a black woman? Numbers 12 indicates that he married a Cushite, which is an Ethopian, I believe. Unless I’m misreading the text, Miriam and Aaron grumble against Moses for his inter-racial marriage, yet God rebukes them and declares Moses faithful.
Hey Dave, others have answered your question better than I likely could:
Augustine and Calvin denied this interpretation. There is nothing prior to Numbers 12 about the death of Zipporah, and so we must assume that this chapter refers to her. Zipporah was a Midianite, and her people were related to the Hebrews through Abraham’s wife Keturah. The Midianites lived in the land of Cush, which is modern-day Ethiopia. The 1599 Geneva Bible agrees: “Zipporah, Moses’ wife, was a Midianite, and because Midian bordered on Ethiopia, it is sometimes referred to in the scriptures by this name.” As Matthew Henry writes, the sedition of Miriam and Aaron was “because of Zipporah, whom on this occasion they called, in scorn, an Ethiopian woman, and who, they insinuated, had too great an influence upon Moses in the choice of these seventy elders.” (Harry Seabrook in his response to John Piper)
And BigCalvin, I think I finally understand your meaning. You’re asking how we can know for certain that the fleshly commonality between Adam and Eve necessitates normative racial commonality in the here and now(?). Well, as I’ve said, between Moses and Paul it seems that the creation mandate regarding congenial kinds (Deut.22:9-11) extends into the biological/ taxonomical as much as it does to the covenantal/ familial. Really, by nature of heredity, the two categories overlap. Therefore, acknowledging as we do the bio-familial nature at work in the covenant of marriage, its hard to fathom how we might take from Gen. 1 & 2 that obvious dissimilarity between man and wife be acceptable. It simply cannot be said to comport (in the full capability of man’s stewardship) with the example of the first union.
Words like “Helpmeet†(mirror, reflection) and phrases like “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh…†simply demand of us a serious and categorical pursuit of like kind. Anything short of this interpretation smacks of “hath God truly said?†(Gen.3) Really, that seems to be the nature of Christ’s dialogue with the Jews in Matt.19— notice, they weren’t attempting to deny any overt commands of the creation ordinance against divorce but rather the implications of the first union as a normative template. He was chiding them for their lack of necessary inference from the text.
Take for instance someone who marries his Grandmother (I know, ick, but bear with me) — where does the Bible explicitly forbid such a union? It doesn’t — atleast that is, not outside of implication from the creation ordinance and the multipurpose prohibitions against unequal yoking as an extension thereof. Now what if this strange someone insisted that his Grandmother is a Christian woman (maybe even still in her childbearing years) and thus fulfilled all explicit requirements for a wife? Would we consent? If his assumptions are in any way faulty, so too are those of mixed-race marriage. And accordingly, if mixed-race marriage is vindicated upon the premises which you’ve set forth, so too then is the man who marries Grammy and with him a plethora of other unusual circumstances follow. Remember our discussion of the Christian man wanting to marry a ten year old girl? It also applies.
We also garner further definition of “Helpmeet†by further textual example:
“This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.†(Gen.6:9)
Now, some take the above word “generations†as we might use it today to mean the generation in which he lived but this is demonstrably a false assumption by way of its previous usage in-text:
“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,†(Gen.2:4)
Now here’s what Calvin says concerning the meaning of “generationsâ€:
“These are the generations. 9 The design of Moses was deeply to impress upon our minds the origin of the heaven and the earth, which he designates by the word generation. For there have always been ungrateful and malignant men, who, either by feigning, that the world was eternal or by obliterating the memory of the creations would attempt to obscure the glory of God. Thus the devils by his guiles turns those away from God who are more ingenious and skillful than others in order that each may become a god unto himself.†(Calvin’s Commentaries on Gen.2:4)
That is to say that the “perfection†of Noah in his “generations†had to do with his line of descent as a Sethite, separate from the line of Cain. And as we’ve spoken of before, the Patriarchs all follow suit by their refusal to takes wives for their sons from among any other than the Semite race. You may opt to say that they were precluded from intermarriage with Canaanites specifically as a people bound for annihilation but that doesn’t resolve the issue as there were plenty of Japhethites in the vicinity also. But still the people of God were motivated by some moral conviction to strictly marry kindred.
I know I wasn’t able to respond to everything this time around but I live the days of my labor on the minute hand of a clock. I hope to address more of what you had to say at a later time.
Oh and as for sounding like Tony, all I’ve to say is… come on now, how you gon’ do me like gat?
I was endeavoring in my citation to give passages which elaborated not only the conclusions but also the thought processes which brought certain luminaries to those conclusions. Like Tony? Not at all.
Just a jab. This is all too fun and I couldn’t hold back. Remember, if it’s not published in a journal it’s bogus.
This has been an interesting discussion and I must apologize for not chiming in on much of it. Part of the issue has simply been the busyness of life; part of the problem is not knowing where to begin. I say this because each one of you are coming from vastly different persepectives filled with varying presuppositions about the Bible, Christianity, culture, etc. I really want to take the time to engage, but frankly I just don’t have the time right now to sort through all the thoughts and tangents of a post that has gotten WAY off topic (not to mention turned into a confrontational debate; a contest of wills or egos if you will). For these reasons I’m shutting down comments on this thread. I do try hard to keep new content coming, so I’m sure this topic will come up again.
[...] Here’s a textbook example of what passes for debate on Kinism. It starts with a ruling elder of a church (in this case) linking to a bundle of malicious and rather silly lies to prove that Kinism, which is simply shorthand for the views held by every Christian who lived prior to 1950, is evil. The "manner in which" Little Geneva "was brought down" is very simple. The Ministry Mafia hacked into the server and also left porn files there. The Holy Terrorists did this to protect their Teflon Don from public criticism and scrutiny. Many other websites owned by our friends have also been hacked. We are using different blog software here and have taken precautions to make it far more secure than any Wordpress blog. At any rate, the recipe calls for denouncing "the hate that was spewed" at LG without any proof whatsoever that any of it was false. This is S.O.P. and hardly worthy of linking to it. The reason this particular linked page is worth reading is because of the excellent comments by "Ehud Would." And when confronted with sound reason, the blog’s proprietor looked down at his watch and announced that he just doesn’t have the time to sort through the details, and you never know when the weather could turn. Okay, then. Back to spewing hatred. [...]