Saturday, October 31, 2009

Reformation Day Blessing

Today is October 31st, the day we traditionally celebrate as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. According to tradition, it is the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses (or propositions for which he invited discussion & debate) to the church door at Wittenberg.

This evening it will be my honor to portray Martin Luther in program at Unity Presbyterian Church (ARP) in Piedmont, SC. I thought some of you might be interested to read my presentation.

Hello, my name is Martin Luther. You may remember me because on the eve of All Saints Day – you call it Halloween – in 1517, I nailed a notice to the church door at Wittenberg.

Now, in those days before Facebook, the church door was like a public bulletin board, so posting a message was no big deal. I was making a public challenge to debate some of the Church’s practices that I thought were not according to the Bible.

Two years later, I got my debate – with a very famous and learned theologian by the name of von Eck. At that time, von Eck made an accusation that I was a new John Hus

Well, that hit me hard, because I knew the name of Hus. I had been taught that he was a heretic burned at the stake in 1415. I did not want to be associated with a heretic.

So, I went to the university library and read all I could find about this John Hus. He lived in Bohemia – you call it the Czech Republic. If you look on a map of Europe, Germany is here, Poland is here, and where my thumbs cross is Bohemia.

As a young priest, John Hus encountered the teachings of John Wycliffe, from England. Wycliffe had translated the Scriptures into his native tongue, and he also showed how the Church had drifted from the Bible’s teachings.

Hus taught some pretty radical ideas. He said that the Church was not made up of pope and priests, but of all God’s elect people; he also taught that Christ, not the pope was the only true head of the Church. He also spoke out against indulgences – paying money to the Church to have your sins forgiven.

Hus preached that one receives forgiveness from God through true repentance, not by paying money. That was the same thing I said in the paper that I nailed to the church door. I really started to like this guy.

It was no wonder that the Church officials were really out to get John Hus. At that time, Bohemia had a good king: Wenceslaus. (Good King Wenceslaus . . . that’s really kind of catchy.) The king tried to protect Hus, but that only lasted so long.

Hus was put on trial and told to renounce his beliefs. He said that he would change only if someone could prove his teachings were contrary to the Bible. On July 6, 1415, Hus’s enemies executed him by burning him at the stake.

Before he died, he made a prophecy. He said, “In a hundred years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform can not be suppressed." It was 102 years later that I nailed my paper to the church door.

In speaking of the Reformation, someone has said, “Wycliffe struck the spark, Hus lit the torch, and Luther illumined the land.” I prefer to say that God’s Word illumined the land.

As we celebrate the Reformation, we honor those who -- like Hus -- gave their lives for Christ and His Gospel. But I think there is also room to rejoice and make merry as we bask in the light of the truth.

In that spirit, I invite you to click on the link below and watch

The Reformation Polka

Friday, October 30, 2009

Cheap Ammo

This is from my barber. I put it in the You-Get-What-You-Pay-For Dept.



While the above picture strikes me with its sardonic humor, it also reminds me that without ammunition, a firearm (i.e., a weapon that fires projectiles) ceases to be a firearm (i.e., a weapon that fires projectiles).

How many firearms owners will tell you, "Ammo? Oh, yeah . . . I've got a box of it around here, somewhere"? (Translation: "There's a 20-year-old box of cartridges with eight rounds lying in the garage where it has been exposed to repeated drastic temperature changes.")

Yesterday I noticed an ad for a sporting goods store that has brand-name ammo on sale. Does this mean the ammo shortage is easing?

Maybe I should make a trip down there. How about you?

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

M4 SOPMOD

Your eyes glaze over. You can't turn your them away. The drool starts to collect at the corners of your mouth Don't expect your wife/girl friend to understand why this pic does this to you.


"I'm not coveting, I'm . . . ADMIRING!"

Thanks to my barber for sending me this.

Monday, October 26, 2009

The Roots of WARSKYL,, 10

I believe that I have made my position clear on the mission of WARSKYL and how it relates to the races of the world. At this point, I want to tie up some loose ends so that we all can move on. Here are some issues that have come up.

FIRST is the question of statistics. You have read repeated assertions that, since since blacks commit 80% of the violence in this nation, it proves that black folk have a genetic predisposition for violence. Others look at the statistics and say that since the overwhelming percentage of violence comes from the poor, that poverty is the cause of violence.

My point is that you can't look at just one factor when you're analyzing statistics. For example, since serial killers come almost exclusively from the white community, can we conclude that the white race carries a serial-murder gene? I'm sure you would see that such a characterization based on one statistical factor is both invalid and unfair. The same holds true about drawing conclusions about race and violence.

Rather than look to a superficial analysis of statistics, I take my view of violence from Scripture. Here is how Scripture characterizes the human race apart from the grace of God:

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Rom 3:9-18)

Note that the word Gentile includes both white and black.

SECOND I want to address the question of whether you can extrapolate the command, "Honor thy father and thy mother," to include preferring and honoring the pagan culture of your forbears -- especially honoring and preferring such pagan expressions above your brothers and sisters in Christ who come from other racial backgrounds.

Let's look at how Jesus Himself defines familial preference:
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Mat 12:46-50, emphasis added)

There is an old saying: "Blood (familial ties) is thicker than water (the covenantal ties of baptism). Many people abide by this saying, but it goes against the teaching of Christ:

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Mat 10:34-35)

He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. (Mat 10:37)

For this reason, the Lord's apostles called for people to turn away from the pagan cultures of their fathers:

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers. (1Pe 1:18)

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (Rom 12:2)

To the recipients of the epistle, their world was Roman -- white, European and pagan. Honoring father and mother obviously did not include honoring and preferring the vain, pagan traditions received from their fathers.

God gave the 5th Commandment to His people. Their children were to obey and honor them because they obeyed and honored God. Paul puts the Fifth Commandment in the same context for New Testament believers:

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) (Eph 6:1-2, emphasis added)

In fact, covenantal ties found in Christ produce new familial ties. In Christ, we are all the seed of Abraham:

And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:29)

This new familial tie in Christ means that I honor my fathers (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob) when I honor their God. Honoring my fathers means honoring white, European Christian Fathers-in-the-faith like Luther, Calvin & Knox as well as non-white Fathers like Augustine or the Apostles Paul, Peter, etc.

This brings me to the THIRD point, that my ties in Christ not only introduce me into a new family, but they confirm citizenship in a new nation. Randall has written:

The great commission does indeed tell us to teach all nations (note the plural) about Jesus. It does not tell us to amalgamate all these converts into ONE christian nation.

The Bible teaches that we DO become members of one nation, in Christ. By virtue of being in Christ, all believers are the seed of Abraham. They are therefore no longer alienated from New Covenant Israel (NCI).

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one . . . . Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. (Eph 2:12-20, emphasis added)

The Apostle Peter explicitly calls believers a holy nation:

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1Pe 2:9-10, emphasis added)

The emphasized part shows that he was not addressing native-born (shem-itic) Israelites. He is talking to Gentile believers, and the reference to royal priesthood and holy nation allude to the language God used in setting apart Old Covenant Israel:

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exo 19:6)

Thus, as a member of the NCI, I share a rich cultural heritage with my fellow-citizens no matter what race or culture they come from.

In fact, Peter's words translated as chosen generation are understood to mean chosen race by John Calvin, A.T. Robertson and other expositors. Thus, as Abraham's seed, all who are in Christ share a common citizenship in the NCI and a common racial heritage in Abraham through Christ.

The exhortation to the racially diverse churches of the New Covenant is not one of separate-but-equal, rather one of single-minded unity (Eph. 4:11-13; Phil. 1:27; Rom 15:6; et. al.) Likewise, the exhortation to marry is "in the Lord"(i.e., within the chosen race) not along the old racial & national boundaries.

It is this unity of thought and mind that will bring all nations into unity under Christ (Christendom). As this happens, old loyalties will subside and we will become in practice what we are now in principle: a single nation (the NCI).

Because I hold to this Biblical understanding, Randall accuses me of holding a "blatant racial double standard". Here is how he characterizes my position:

By the same token, it is wrong to say anything nice about a white culture. We must always accentuate the violent, pagan past of our white fore-fathers and never say anything complimentary about them. It doesn't matter that every race on the planet has a violent past, we must never stress the good things and accomplishments our fathers have done. We shouldn't take the 5th commandment at face value. Got it.


The inference is that I have never said anything good about any white culture. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I will say he is ill-informed. Over the time my blog has existed, I have honored many contributions by Christian white Europeans.

Although I have deprecated the violence of Vikings who burned churches and monasteries, I have recognized and honored European examples and contributions to Christian Martialism:

The Franks

The Bohemians

The Dutch

The Irish and here

The Scots and here

My positive references to white European contributions to the field of self defense include references to Fairbairn, Sykes, Keith Pascal & a number of others.

You have to read my blog with blinders on to claim that I never say anything nice about "white" culture or that I always accentuate their violent pagan past. In fact, such matters were never an issue here until Randall brought up his obvious dislike for black people, and I thought his strong anti-black rhetoric needed a Scriptural corrective.

Now, I hope to get back to the primary business of WARSKYL, which is to present to all nations and races an example of Christian Martialism: a view of the warrior spirit in subjection to Christ.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Calling Out to God: Defensive Prayer

The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower. I will call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies. (Psa 18:2-3)

And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. (Psa 50:15)

RPC sent me a link to a video that reminded me of a seminar I attended years ago. The speaker talked about teaching our wives & daughters to call out to God out loud if they are ever attacked.

He related some remarkable stories about women who did this. One of them was about a woman who had attended one of his earlier seminars.

She had to park her car some distance away from the auditorium where the sessions were held, and as she walked from her car, a man grabbed her and started to pull her into the darkness. She had the presence of mind to remember what she had learned at the previous session of the seminar.

She called out to God for protection and that he would stop the man from doing this terrible thing. Upon hearing this, the orc said something to this effect: "Oh, are you one of those Christians meeting up the street? You shouldn't be walking alone in this neighborhood -- it's dangerous." And then he let her go.

Within minutes, the police picked up the man, who turned out to be a serial rapist they had been trying to catch.

The lesson here is not to throw away your handgun or your wasp spray, any more than David threw away his sword when God inspired him to write the passage above. The point is that our ultimate faith is not in our weapons or our skill, but in God.

I have addressed this issue in The Christian Martialist and Providence and Another Lesson on Providence. It's a lesson, however, that bears repeating.

Here is the video of an ABC News interview with a woman who called out to God in the presence of an armed robber:

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Roots of WARSKYL, 9

Continued from "The Roots of WARSKYL, 8"

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Mat 28:16-20)

Our Lord commissioned the Church to bring the whole earth under His dominion. I have previously mentioned that I see WARSKYL as my contribution to one small part of that mission.

The Bible contains much explicit and implicit teaching about violence, self-defense and combat. Large segments of the Church have misunderstood and misapplied those teachings, so that I intend WARSKYL to serve as a corrective to those false teachings.

I have placed WARSKYL in the open marketplace of ideas to encourage and edify Christians of all nations and as a witness to unbelievers that the Word of God speaks to every area of life and challenges every world culture. Every day the search engines bring people to this blog who may have never thought of self-defense as a valid, Biblical concept.

Over the past 30 days, visits from foreign countries include:
  • 13 from Brazil
  • 1 from Indonesia
  • 8 from India
  • 6 from the Philippines
  • 1 each from Turkey, Lebanon, Kenya and New Zealand
There are also visitors from various European nations, as well, but take a look at the ones I've listed. They are predominantly non-white and in several of these nations Christians live at risk of attack from their non-Christian neighbors. Past visitors have come from China, Southeast Asia and various nations of Africa and the Middle East.

I don't know how many of these visitors are Christians looking for answers, nor in what way this blog may have helped. I have prayed that WARSKYL will be used for Christ's kingdom, and I try to remember in prayer daily my persecuted brothers and sisters around the world.

That's why I could not let some of the race-related comments posted here recently go unchallenged. The impression that such comments make on my brothers and sisters of other nations, races and cultures could turn them away from this ministry, and I do not want that to happen.

For most Americans, the concept of dying for the faith is still academic. Our non-Christian neighbors do not form gangs to raid & burn down our houses and churches just because we trust in Christ.

That day certainly seems to be coming, here, but it has not yet fully arrived. When it does come, it will matter little whether the helping hand your Christian Martialist brother extends to you is white, black, olive or brown.

Therefore, I want all my readers to understand that this ministry promotes Christian Martialism among all Christ's people, redeemed out of every nation, race and culture.

Beyond the limited application of Scripture to the area of Christian Martialism, I also intend WARSKYL to serve as an example of how to apply the principles laid down in my book Christian Methodology. My book shows how Scripture subdues every area of thought & life as part of the sanctification process. Once you know the process, you can cooperate with it to more fully bring your worldview under the dominion of Christ.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Self Defense and Holiness

I have had a little correspondence lately with RPC on the subject of self defense. He sent me a quote & comment that I want every Christian Martialist to read.

The reason is that from childhood you've no doubt been propagandized with the notion that, for the Christian, meekly submitting to violence is somehow holier than defending himself. A lot of this comes from taking Jesus' turn-the-other-cheek comment out of its historical, cultural, moral and legal context.

Here's the quote:

Self-defense against unlawful violence is always legitimate. It is more than legitimate: it is a moral obligation. Our life is not our own; it belongs to God, and therefore as stewards of God's possessions we are under obligation to preserve our own life, and the lives of others, from destruction by criminal violence. The principle that necessary self-defense is legitimate is generally upheld by the civil laws of nations. To claim that the "Golden Rule," or the obligation to love our neighbor, means that it is wrong to kill in an effort at self-defense is to push loving our neighbor to an absurd and fanatical extreme.

The Scripture commands a person to love his neighbor as himself: that is, love for one's neighbor is to be kept in balance with a proper love for oneself. The person who will let himself be murdered by a criminal, without attempting self-defense, loves his neighbor too much, and does not love himself enough. G. Vos. on Westminster Larger Catechism, Question #137.

RPC's comment follows. (Note that our culture is not accustomed to following long sentences, but it will be worth your while to understand exactly what he is saying):

A deeper understanding of the moral law of God as seen in the practical out workings of the case laws of the OT that reflect the Moral Law in action and their practical application in principle always forms a world view that holds in proper balance the application of the general equity of the Law of Liberty. The unity of Scripture found in textually thematic doctrines . . . which can not be separated under the one covenant of grace prevents the error of looking to the Bible as a book of topics--a dangerous error.

In all cases, regardless of the principles employed according to the event at hand, the thoughts and attitudes of the heart come under the double-edged sword of the Word of God. So even self-defense is a situation in which sanctification will take place. (emphasis added)

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Protect Your Family

As a Christian Martialist you want to protect your family. Not all threats, however, come in the form of muggers and rapists.

Of course you want to protect your family from diseases, too. And the conventional wisdom on that count includes an annual flu shot.

Before you rush out & inoculate your loved ones, check out the videos below.



So . . . should you protect your family WITH the vaccine or protect them FROM the vaccine? In the final analysis, the decision is yours.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Warrior Fitness: Pushups

I firmly believe in bodyweight exercise for fitness. God gave you your best workout equipment when He created your body.

It is for this reason that I promote John E. Peterson's Pushing Yourself to Power. It's a treasury of bodyweight exercises with both detailed descriptions and also photographs that illustrate each exercise.

You can follow one of Peterson's recommended workout programs or design your own from the many exercises given.

If you think you can't get in top shape with power calisthenics, you don't really know what bodyweight fitness is all about. I don't have a video of Peterson doing pushups, but here's one that shows some of the same techniques he uses.

(Warning: unless you have been conditioned to tolerate music that assaults your nervous system, you may want to mute the sound.)

By the way, I have only recently started to do the "hindu" or Tiger Stretch pushups again. I used to do them about 25 yrs ago as part of a stretching routine, but I didn't have a name for them. They seemed much easier then. Now, my form is not anywhere near perfect . . . YET.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Phoenix Police Shoot First, Ask Questions Later

There are good officers out there who approach their jobs professionally, competently & without cynicism. I salute them, and I think they deserve honor and respect.

Then there are the other kind.

It's an early Fall evening, your young son is in bed and you're unwinding from a long day. Then you & your wife hear the noise of shattering glass -- someone has crashed right through your living living room window and is now in the house.

You grab your handgun & your cell phone, and you confront the intruder as you make the 911 call. Your wife meets police outside to tell them that you're holding the orc at gunpoint.

Then the police come, put the intruder in cuffs & haul him away to jail . . . right? Well, it doesn't work out quite that well if you're Anthony Arambula of Phoenix, Arizona.

He & his wife did all those things on September 17, 2008. Here's what happened:

Inside the house, the Arambulas say, Officer Brian Lilly shot Anthony six times in the back while he was still on the phone with the 911 operator - twice when he was on the ground.

Seems that someone forgot to pass on the info that the good guy was holding the bad guy for police. The situation actually got worse from there.

The Courthouse News Service has the rest of the story:

Family Says 911 Tape Caught Cops Planning Cover-Up After Shooting


Has it come to the place where you must always assume the police are not on your side, until they prove otherwise?

Monday, October 12, 2009

The Roots of WARSKYL, 8

Continued from "The Roots of WARSKYL, 7"

At one point, Randall has appealed to the fact that God commanded the destruction of the Canaanites & forbade intermarriage with them as proof that God's purpose was to preserve Israel's racial purity. Here's the passage in question:

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deu 7:3-4)

Randall reads this and sees a ban on genetic pollution. But the mixed offspring of the Israelite and his Canaanite wife are not mentioned.

The concern is that the wife will turn the husband away from serving the Lord of the covenant. This will, of course result in a family unfaithful to God, but I don't see anything genetic in the passage. Randall does.

Whose interpretation is correct? Well, it seems to me that if the passage is concerned with preserving genetic purity, then all intermarriage with other nations would always bring negative sanctions. God's Law would have to be consistent in this matter.

Thus, if we find instances of God's approval (implicit or explicit) upon other races integrating into Israel, then we must conclude that reading racial purity into Deuteronomy 7 is an error. Let's begin with Moses, the man through whom the Law came to Israel.

At one point, Moses' brother & sister challenged his authority because they did not like his interracial marriage.

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. (Num 12:1)

This would have been the perfect time for God to make clear His proscription of racial mixing. Instead, He vindicated Moses and became angry with those who opposed him.

And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.(Num 12:9-10)

Ethiopians, like Egyptians were Hamites (descendants of Noah's son, Ham) -- a bloodline distinct from that of the Hebrew Shem-ites. Nonetheless, we find a specific provision in the Law to accept Egyptians into Israel on an equal footing with native-born Israelites.

[T]hou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.(Deu 23:7-8)

The Egyptians' genes obviously did not change in three generations. It seems that the three-generation rule guaranteed that the conversion of an Egyptian was genuine, in that it required that he train his children and grandchildren also to follow the covenant.

The point is that to receive those of Egyptian descent into the congregation of the LORD not only gave them equal access to the Tabernacle/Temple, but also equal access to the pool of marriageable Israelites.

Of course, Moses' day was not the first to see intermarriage between Israelites and other races. One of Israel's most prominent tribes came from mixed parentage.

I'm referring to Joseph, who married an Egyptian woman.

And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. (Gen 41:45)

And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction. (Gen 41:50-52)

The half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were among the most numerous and mighty of Israel, although they were racially mixed (Ham-ite and Shem-ite) at the source. If this interracial union were a violation of God's will, then it would be logical that Jacob, Joseph's father, should disown the half-breed offspring. Instead, we find this:

And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession. And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. (Gen 48:3-5)

Not only does Jacob accept these mixed-race boys as his own, but, as God's patriarchal representative, he pronounces a mighty blessing upon Joseph's seed (See Genesis 49:24-26).

Now, lets look at Joseph's brother, Judah. It seems that he married a Canaanite woman who bore him three sons.

And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her. And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan. And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him. (Gen 38:1-5)

God killed two of the sons because of their wickedness (an ethical, not a genetic trait, because the third son -- Shelah -- was not so slain). Moreover, if Judah's line were tainted by Shelah's Canaanite genes, you would expect God to require that Judah disinherit him.

Instead, you see the descendants of Shelah receiving an inheritance along with the rest of Judah's tribe when they entered the Promised Land.

And the sons of Judah after their families were; of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites . . . . (Num 26:20)

And while I'm thinking about the Canaanites, I should mention Rahab of Jericho. Since she was evidently prominent enough to be known by the king (Joshua 2:3), I would guess that she was a temple prostitute, and served an ambassadorial function in that visitors to the city would pay their respects to the city's god by visiting her.

In spite of the depths of her participation in the depraved religion & culture of Canaan, God's grace touched her life, and she entered into covenant with the Hebrew spies. Joshua honored that covenant.

And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. (Jos 6:25)

You do not see God rebuking Joshua for this, as He rebuked him for making peace with the deceptive Gibeonites, who did not submit to the Lord of the covenant. In fact, later in Scripture God commends this Canaanite woman's faith:

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. (Heb 11:30-31)

In fact, this Canaanite woman married an Israelite and became part of the blood-line of the Messiah (Matthew 1:5). Yes, Jesus was born of mixed racial stock. Matthew Henry comments on the genealogy of Matthew 1:

There are four women, and but four, named in this genealogy; two of them were originally strangers to the commonwealth of Israel, Rachab a Canaanitess, and a harlot besides, and Ruth the Moabitess; for in Jesus Christ there is neither Greek, nor Jew; those that are strangers and foreigners are welcome, in Christ, to the citizenship of the saints.

That brings us to the New Testament. As I have mentioned previously, the churches that Paul founded represented a mix of Jew and Gentile Christians. Now, did God command that these racially disparate elements remain separate and unmixed?

First, let's notice that Paul's right-hand man, his son-in-the-faith was of mixed racial stock:

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek. (Act 16:1)

Timothy was half Jewish (Shem-ite) and half Greek (Japheth-ite through Javan). It seems odd that, if Paul wanted to send a message of racial purity to the churches, he would choose someone of mixed race as his protege.

Timothy helped Paul found the church at Corinth, which was also racially mixed (Acts 18:8). Later, in his first epistle to that church, Paul addresses the subject of marriage.

This would present the prime opportunity to tell these folks not to intermingle, racially. He does not do that, however. In fact, he does the opposite.

In addressing the question of whom a widow might marry, Paul says,

. . . she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (1Co 7:39)

The ONLY restriction that Paul places on choosing a marriage partner is that he be in the Lord, that is to say, another believer in Christ.

Well, this post has grown much larger than is probably good for weekday reading. I'll close here and pick it up another time.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

The Roots of WARSKYL, 7

Continued from "The Roots of WARSKYL, 6"

It is no secret that Randall Gerard has raised the issue of racialism on this blog -- and in answer to Emil's question on why we are even discussing this, I will say that I am not the one who brought it up. Anyway, since Randall has been very vocal and posted many comments on the issue, I hope he will not take offense if I address his points in particular.

In his latest comment, Randall states:

My point is simple and direct and denied constantly by modern 'multicultural' christians.

He has several times attempted to associate those who disagree with him with multiculturalism. This does not fly with me, for multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures are of equal value.

I do not say that all cultures are equal. For example, the white Celtic culture of A.D. 330 was pagan and clearly inferior to the Berber culture of the day, which had a large Christian influence.

Speaking of the Berbers, did you know that Augustine, Bishop of Hippo was a Berber and not a white European? His theology became the core of both Lutheran and Calvinist churches (Luther had been an Augustinian monk).

So, the core theology of the Protestant Reformation and the white European culture that grew up around it, did not come from a white European, but an olive-skinned Berber. The Berbers later had a genetic infusion from Viking rapists who introduced red hair & lighter skin.



While we're on the subject of the Vikings, there is no way that the extremely violent pagan culture of these whitest of the whites could compare to the Abyssinian (Ethiopian) culture of the 10th Century. By the beginning of the Norsemen's adventures in pillage and rape, Abyssinia had been officially Christian for over six hundred years.

No, I am not a multiculturalist.

In fact, I would say that Randall himself suffers from his own version of multiculturalism. On the one hand he quotes me and then responds:

"The objective was not to merge cultures, but to transform them by "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ had commanded." Precisely. Well said.

He clearly sees Western Civilization has departed from Christ and that it abides under God's judgment as a secular-humanist culture.

Christianity hasn't been an 'all or nothing' religion in the public square for at least 200 years. Officially, we are an agnostic country and we recognize any and every god brought to our shores. Foriegn idolaters are streaming to our lands (ours meaning white european home-lands) because they want to take what we have built. They would rather do that then build up their own countries. It is the judgement of God that we don't recognize theft when we see it; it is the judgement of God that we have killed so many of our own unborn children; it is the judgement of God that we are getting older and shrinking in population while all our enemies are getting younger and more numerous; that part is true enough. I agree with that.

But then Randall shifts gears and talks about saving this ungodly civilization:

But whether [non-Western immigrants] convert to Christ or not, they will still be foriegners who have no interest in preserving our civilization.

I might add that if they convert to Christ, our Western culture will target them just as it has increasingly persecuted conservative Christians for the past generation.

After admitting that Western civilization is post-christian and that he nevertheless wants to preserve it, Seth asked him, "Why?" Randall gives his reason:

. . . you've made it abundantly clear that you don't give a d*** about my people or the civilization we have built. If it were otherwise, you wouldn't be asking 'what's so great about western civilization', even as you enjoy it's benefits. Gee, I don't know Seth; how about, it's mine and I like it?

So, here it is. Randall has loyalty to two cultures: 1) the civilization that must be built upon every commandment of Christ, and 2) The secular-humanist, post-christian Western culture. Because it is his, and he likes it.

Yes, he goes on to say that the culture was built on the Bible, but he also later says that Western Civilization is an amalgam of Roman, Greek and Biblical cultures (multiculturalism, again?).

So, where does this double-minded approach to culture and Scripture originate? You can see it in the following assertion made by Randall:

I maintain it is impossible to separate a blood-line, a race, a people, from the culture they create. The people themselves are an inextricable part of that culture. Culture is more then just the out-working of societal beliefs; it is a reflection of US, biologically, spiritually, and in every other way.

I want to show how this axiomatic belief arises from and contributes to a grievous misunderstanding of Scripture in my next post on this topic.

Friday, October 9, 2009

The Roots of WARSKYL, 6

Continued from "The Roots of WARSKYL, 5"

Emil has written a comment that I thought deserved notice in a post. He wrote about this comment I made in the previous post:

The objective [of the Great Commission] was not to merge cultures, but to transform them by "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ had commanded."

Emil wrote:

I would argue actually that we, by observing all things that Christ had commanded, are in fact, creating a new culture in and of itself, due to the fact that 'culture' is simply an outward expression of that which you believe. So if you obey Christ, you will be creating a new culture.

If by 'culture' you mean 'racial groups', then I would agree, our SOLE purpose is not to 'merge', but at the same time, I don't quite see the purpose of even addressing that point, or making it a subject to debate... I don't see the importance of whether or not we 'merge'. Maybe I missed something along the way? :D

I realize that I did not make my point clearly, so here I will attempt a little fuller explanation.

My point addresses those who claim that "Western Civilization" is a mixture of Roman, Greek & Christian elements. I believe that the degree to which you can call the West Roman or Greek is the precise degree to which it opposes God and needs further transformation.

You are correct, Emil, in saying that we are to create a new culture founded on the commands of Christ. The Bible, however, identifies certain elements of culture that can be transformed (redeemed, if you will) by reinterpreting them in a Scriptural context.

I'm not talking here about philosophical or religious systems, but things like houses, fields, vineyards (agri-culture?). When God sent Israel into the land of Canaan, they were to obliterate all traces of Canaanite culture. Nevertheless, God did not require that they raze everything to the ground.

And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not . . . . (Deu 6:10-11)

Canaanites built houses with god-shelves so that even their houses would deny the manifest glory of the true God (ref. Romans 1:18, ff.). The faithful Israelite would destroy the idol and transform the house into a sanctuary where his family could serve and pray to the Lord of the Covenant.

In our own day, one of the objectives of Christian education is to take the facts of history, biology, chemistry, math, etc. and redeem them by reinterpreting them (taking them out of the secular humanist context of interpretation and placing them in the context of God's creation according to the revelation found in Scripture).

Christians have even subjected language itself to this redemptive process. Martin Luther's translation of the Bible, for example, left an unmistakable imprint on the German tongue just as the Authorized Version (1611) did on the English language.

If this aspect of redeeming or transforming certain elements of culture interests you, my book Christian Methodology presents the mechanics of the Biblical process necessary to do so.

Emil, I hope this clarifies my point and shows that I did not mean to address racial aspects of merging at all in my statement. I hope to address race in my next post on this topic.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

The Roots of WARSKYL, 5

Continued from "The Roots of WARSKYL, 4"

The Apostle Peter had introduced Gentiles to the Gospel (Acts 10). Before the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem he also defended his baptizing and receiving them on an equal basis (Acts 11:15-18).

While visiting the church at Antioch, even Peter, however, succumbed to ethnic and racial pressures. The Apostle Paul writes:

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (Gal 2:11-12)

It seems the circumcision party which swayed Peter was willing to overlook the racial differences as long as believers of Gentile stock submitted to the prevailing Judaic culture. The Pharisees -- whom Jesus had adamantly opposed (Matthew 23) -- presided over that culture.

As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul dealt with how the various ethnic/racial groups (Italian, Greek, Celtic, etc.) of Christians related to Hebrew believers and to each other. The objective was not to merge cultures, but to transform them by "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ had commanded.

(Thus, insofar as Western Civilization is an amalgam of Christian & Roman & Greek ideas, it is NOT what Christ intends in the Great Commission, even we see it as "OURS" in some racial sense.)

To be continued.

Saturday, October 3, 2009

Backup Weapon

My barber sent me the link to this discussion on the LA Sheriff Dept Reserve site. It's pretty much ho-hum unless you scroll down to the entry by 53T2. He's been there & has something to say.

Here's the link:

Best Backup Gun?


I've always thought the discussion of backups went in the wrong direction. If 13 (or maybe 25) rounds of 9mm did not do the job, why would you think that seven or eight rounds of .380 (9mm short) would?

If 9mm will not finish the orc, then your backup should be maybe .45 or .44 Magnum. Personally, if my .45 couldn't handle an assailant, I'd want a 12-gauge "backup" at hand.

Maybe an even better concept is to become proficient enough with your primary firearm so that a backup is superfluous . . . like putting table sugar on maple syrup.

Friday, October 2, 2009

The Roots of WARSKYL, 4

Continued from "The Roots of WARSKYL, 3"

In my previous post, I said that the Kingdom of God is itself a civilization which transforms and draws into itself any and all cultures as they submit to Christ. If you look in the New Testament, you can see this principle in operation.

A major issue in Acts and the Epistles centers on whether or on what basis Hebrew believers in Christ would accept Gentile believers. The problem arose because some Christians of Jewish origin saw the Messiah as an ethnic and racial Savior.

The Apostle Paul addressed those inclined to racial exclusivism as follows:

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee. . . . (Php 3:4-5)

He then discounts his elitist credentials by saying, "But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ." (Php 3:7) He further taught that, on the basis of their union with Christ, all believers from every ethnicity are the seed of Abraham (Galatians 3:29).

Paul's letter to Ephesus also makes the point that all believers share the common heritage of Israel under the New Covenant:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. . . . Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God. (Eph 2:11-13)

This concept did not fly well with all the people in all the churches. I hope to cover that in another post.