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.

14 comments:

Randall Gerard said...

I'm still not sure you fully understand my position, but your own is crystal clear, and I will honor it. If you want to continue this conversation with me, perhaps we can do so privately. I remain unconvinced in some ways, but corrected in others, for which I am in your debt. But this is your blog, and I am a guest, and I want to be welcome here, so I will desist.

Thank you for taking so much of your time to address my concerns. I honor your integrity even if I don't honor the conclusions you have drawn.

Randall Gerard said...

- Statistics are useful for drawing general conclusions about large groups. Blacks are violent in particular ways, and statistics show us those areas. Whites too, have their violent tendencies. The difference between you and I is that I allow room for genetic predisposition, and you do not. I am not afraid to say that most depraved serial killers are white males, and this may be explained in part by genetic heritage. 'The sins of the FATHERS are visited upon the 3rd and 4th generations of those who hate me' says the Lord. I believe this curse has a biological and genetic component. You seem to believe that biology is irrelevent; at least when we're talking about human behavior.

- Of course Jesus claimed ALL his disciples as his real family! AND he also said He came FIRST for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I see no contradiction in this; rather it dovetails nicely with Paul's instructions to Timothy: 'Anyone who does not provide for HIS OWN, and especially those of HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD, has denied the faith and is worse then an unbeliever.' Who are 'our own'? Paul is not merely being redundant here, for 'households' in his day often consisted of several generations of people related by blood, plus slaves and servants. If 'household' refers to nuclear and extended family, to what does 'our own' refer? This is kinship language; in context it means we are to be loyal and generous to our own people, and if we aren't we're worse then unbelievers. Why? Because even unbelievers do this much - they honor and nurture their own people. Now, there are other places in Scripture which tell us to do good within the whole 'household' of faith, and I acknowledge this as well. But I don't believe that foreign believers have MORE of a claim on us then our extended family and race. They have the same claim, but the church has always taught that charity is to begin at home, and then extend outward to others.

- The family ties we have with all believers in Christ are spiritual in nature. God still arranges for His people to occupy distinct people groups and nations which are physically, linguisticly and geographically separate in nature. God has not REVERSED Babel; diversity still remains even in NT times (Acts 17:26); but all nations are being brought into subjection to Christ as separate, distinct peoples, not one coffee colored, brown-eyed race. Spiritual oneness does not necessarily imply physical oneness. We do share a common spiritual heritage through the promised seed of Abraham, but we don't have a common racial heritage. Race is transmitted by blood, the christian religion by the new birth as symbolized by the waters of baptism. One is purely physical, the other a physical symbol of a spiritual reality.

Old loyalties do not subside; these loyalties are brought into subjection to Christ. Your take on this subject leads naturally to the reconstruction of the tower of Babel. Christians are not called to have a 'one world, one race' vision. This vision is in fact marxist, and not christian at all.

I agree with you that I should not have accused you of never saying anything nice about white cultures. That was a foolish and false thing to say, and I apologize. I'm also sorry I accused you of having a 'blatant racial double standard'. I am usually careful to avoid that kind of ad hominem argument. I hope you will forgive the lapse.

Emil Bandy said...

I don't know if this sermon has much relevance now, but I just listened to it yesterday and thought it was great.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=525091133123

Gravelbelly said...

Emil, I just finished listening to the sermon you linked to, and it moved me deeply. It's the truth. Too bad so many will not see it.

Randall Gerard said...

Gravelbelly,

I love Voddie Baucham, he is my brother in the Lord. I read the transcript of this sermon, (my audio capability isn't very good) and have a few mild criticisms. I hope you will indulge them for the sake of further understanding on this important issue.

- Even if we adopt Dr. Baucham's main premise, that there is just one race, Dr. Baucham failed to deal with the main thrust of Genesis 10 and avoided Genesis 11 completely. The main thrust is: It was God's will to separate the tribes (which I freely acknowledge were all descendents of Adam through Noah) into discrete and particular nations. Many tribes, all descended from one blood, with boundaries between them, appears to be the soveriegn will of God.

- When men attempted to subvert the divine Will by coming together to build the tower of Babel, God reinforced His original decree and scattered them again, by confusing their languages. So, while Dr. Baucham is correct that all men are descended from Adam and all evolutionary thought is to be rejected by christians, Paul states in Acts 17:26 that boundaries are still appointed among the various tribes. Paul affirms the descent of all humans from one blood, AND the legitimacy of boundaries between ethnic groups. Good fences make good neighbors; and this comports well with the total depravity of all men.

- This was the dominant historic understanding of the orthodox church up until the modern age. What changed? The advent of marxism, with it's over-emphasis on equality which has infiltrated the church. I am dissapointed that Dr. Vaucham frequently uses the word first coined by Leon Trotsky - racism. The definition of this pseudo word changes daily; If all it means is 'making distinctions' then it is meaningless, for everyone does this; and indeed making distinctions is unavoidable.

- For the record, I disavow any doctrine of separation that views other 'races' or 'tribes' as not fully human. I don't follow David Duke. And I reject the view that one must be an evolutionist to believe that God intends for people groups to be separate and distinct nations. Most of our christian forefathers believed this; up until the 20th century anyway.

I read Dr. Vaucham. Now, will the two of you please check out Bodecker's 'conversation about race'?

Gravelbelly said...

You cannot apply the Biblical term "nation" to "race" unless you do it across the board.

If it is wrong to marry people of other nations, then it is wrong for people of German descent to marry people of Italian descent, for people of Swedish descent to marry people of Irish descent, etc.

As far as I can tell, you have used the term "nation" equivocally in all these discussions. You treat all whites as though they are one nation, and they are not.

Randall Gerard said...

Gravelbelly,

I agree. That is a major weakness in my particular view. Nation in the Bible most often equates with 'ethnicity', and discrete ethnic groups are rapidly dissapearing. But, do we throw out biblical categories just because modern travel and communication has done much to blur the lines between ethnic groups, and promote intermarriage? The question is not 'do we even think this way anymore?' but rather 'Should we be thinking this way'?

For what it's worth, I believe most people have a pretty good handle on their own lineage, and gravitate naturally towards those who are most like themselves. Self-segregation is a fact; no matter how much we want to deny it or call it sinful.

Randall Gerard said...

Gravelbelly,

I did some pondering about Judah and found this:

"Have we not all one father? Has not on God created us? Whey then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. For Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign God. May the Lord cut off from the tents of Jacob, any descendant of the man who does this, who brings and offering to the Lord of hosts!"

Malachi 2:10-12 ESV

Gravelbelly said...

So . . . it seems you are quoting a passage that supports my position. The violation is patently religious -- marrying someone who worships a false god. Same as the New Testament:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
(2Co 6:14)

The only racial reference in these passages are the ones you bring with you when you read them.

Randall Gerard said...

Gravelbelly,

The censure is both religious and racial. You asked me about Judah's dalliance with a caananite woman, and I have given you a passage from Malachi that soundly condemns it for two specific reasons, not one. Judah did not keep faith with his own people, for the prophet asks, 'why have we not kept faith with ONE ANOTHER'. Then he goes on to say, that Judah has also profaned the house of the Lord, by marrying the daughter of a foriegn god.

About the first matter, not 'keeping faith with one another', Mathew Henry writes:

"They were a peculiar people, united in one body, and therefore ought to have united for the preserving of the honor of their peculiarity."

Judah's sin was two-fold: He despised his own people by taking a foriegn wife, (the racial aspect) and he trampled the Lord's covenant under-foot by taking a foriegn wife (the religious aspect). I am not seeing things that aren't there; you are refusing to deal with what IS there.

And I bet you still haven't watched Bodecker's film. I have done everything you've asked me to do.

Gravelbelly said...

You have quoted Matthew Henry selectively and out of context. Here is further comment from Henry on the same passage in Malachi 2:

"THE HARM WAS NOT SO MUCH THAT SHE WAS THE DAUGHTER OF A STRANGE NATION (God has made all nations of men, and is himself King of nations), BUT THAT SHE WAS THE DAUGHTER OF A STRANGE GOD trained up in the service and worship of false gods, at their disposal, as a daughter at her father's disposal, and having a dependence upon them; hence some of the rabbin (quoted by Dr. Pocock) say, He that marries a heathen woman is as if he made himself son-in-law to an idol." (emphasis added)

You not only read your racial views into Scripture, but evidently into the commentators, as well.

As to watching your video, you seem to think that I am somehow obligated to do so. I do not recall obligating myself in this way.

I do recall that right after this post, you obligated yourself when you stated,"But this is your blog, and I am a guest, and I want to be welcome here, so I will desist." That was some 8 hrs before you proceeded with your argument in another post.

Randall Gerard said...

Gravelbelly,

My mistake for not reading further in Henry's commentary. Bad form on my part. Nevertheless, you might be interested to see his comments on Ezra 9:2. This passage is much clearer with regard to the question we are examinining together.

My mistake also with regard to the Bodecker film. I was under the mistaken impression that you desired to learn more on the subject. I can see now that you only want to win an argument.

Consider this my last word on the subject unless you or someone else brings it up here. Happy reformation day, brother.

Gravelbelly said...

For the sake of readers who do not have access to Matthew Henry's Conmmentary, I reproduce the relevant comments below:

"I. What the sin was that they were guilty of: it was mingling with the people of those lands (Ezr_9:2), associating with them both in trade and in conversation, making themselves familiar with them, and, to complete the affinity, taking their daughters in marriages to their sons. We are willing to hope that they did not worship their gods, but that their captivity had cured them of their idolatry: it is said indeed that they did according to their abominations; but that (says bishop Patrick) signifies here only the imitation of the heathen in promiscuous marriages with any nation whatsoever, WHICH BY DEGREES WOULD LEAD THEM TO IDOLATRY. Herein, 1. They disobeyed the express command of God, which forbade all intimacy with THE HEATHEN, and particularly in matrimonial contracts, Deu_7:3. 2. They profaned the crown of their peculiarity, and set themselves upon a level with those above whom God had by singular marks of his favour, of late as well as formerly, dignified them. 3. They distrusted the power of God to protect and advance them, and were led by carnal policy, hoping to strengthen themselves and make an interest among their neighbours by these alliances. A practical disbelief of God's all-sufficiency is at the bottom of all the sorry shifts we make to help ourselves. 4. THEY EXPOSED THEMSELVES, AND MUCH MORE THEIR CHILDREN, TO THE PERIL OF IDOLATRY, THE VERY SIN, AND INTRODUCED BY THIS VERY WAY, THAT HAD ONCE BEEN THE RUIN OF THEIR CHURCH AND NATION." (emphasis added)

Since Henry references Deut. 7:3, I reproduce his comment on that passaage below:

"Here is, I. A very strict caution against all friendship and fellowship with idols and idolaters. Those that are taken into communion with God must have no communication with the unfruitful works of darkness. These things they are charged about for the preventing of this snare now before them."

And:

"They must make no marriages with those of them that escaped the sword, Deu_7:3, Deu_7:4. The families of the Canaanites were ancient, and it is probable that some of them were called honourable, which might be a temptation to the Israelites, especially those of them that were of least note in their tribes, to court an alliance with them, to ennoble their blood; and the rather because their acquaintance with the country might be serviceable to them in the improvement of it: but religion, and the fear of God, must overrule all these considerations. To intermarry with them was therefore unlawful, because it was dangerous; this very thing had proved of fatal consequence to the old world (Gen_6:2), and thousands in the world that now is have been undone by irreligious ungodly marriages; for there is more ground of fear in mixed marriages that the good will be perverted than of hope that the bad will be converted. The event proved the reasonableness of this warning: They will turn away thy son from following me. Solomon paid dearly for his folly herein. We find a national repentance for this sin of marrying strange wives, and care taken to reform (Ezr_9:1-15, 10; and Neh. 13), and a New Testament caution not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2Co_6:14. Those that in choosing yokefellows keep not at least within the bounds of a justifiable profession of religion cannot promise themselves helps meet for them. One of the Chaldee paraphrases adds here, as a reason of this command (Deu_7:3), For he that marries with idolaters does in effect marry with their idols.
3. They must destroy all the relics of their idolatry, Deu_7:5. Their altars and pillars, their groves and graven images, all must be destroyed, both in a holy indignation against idolatry and to prevent infection. This command was given before, Exo_23:24; Exo_34:13. A great deal of good work of this kind was done by the people, in their pious zeal (2Ch_31:1), and by good Josiah (2Ch_34:3, 2Ch_34:7), and with this may be compared the burning of the conjuring books, Act_19:19."

Randall Gerard said...

Brother, you are so exasperating, but in a good way. I am amused that you emphasize the small portions that deal with idolatry, which Henry clearly says is the result of the first sin, which is mixing with foreigners to begin with. They sinned by degrees. First they made friendships, then contracts in business, then marriages and then finally, they succumbed to the same idolatries committed by these peoples. It is a chain of sin, and Henry says as much in the first paragraph which you have not capitalized. But it is very apparent that Henry considers the commandment 'don't be unequally yoked' to be much broader then we typically do in our churches. I hope you can at least grant this much.

When you stop writing, I'll stop too.