Biblical Prejuidice

“So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.”  

Galatians 6:10

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I Timothy 5:8

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

I Peter 2:9

Over at this link,

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/04/22/177455764/What-Does-Modern-Prejudice-Look-Like

we learn that God’s command to be biblically prejudiced and rightly discriminatory is sinful. This is evidenced by a few quotes culled from the article. (There is also a interview that you can listen to linked in the article.)

“I think that kind of act of helping towards people with whom we have some shared group identity is really the modern way in which discrimination likely happens.”

Mahzarin Banaji
Harvard psychologist

“The insidious thing about favoritism is that it doesn’t feel icky in any way. We feel like a great friend when we give a buddy a foot in the door to a job interview at our workplace. We feel like good parents when we arrange a class trip for our daughter’s class to our place of work. We feel like generous people when we give our neighbors extra tickets to a sports game or a show.”

Mahzarin Banaji
Harvard psychologist

The article then provides this synopsis,

In each case, however, Banaji, Greenwald and DiTomaso might argue, we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children’s classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds. When we help someone from one of these in-groups, we don’t stop to ask: Whom are we not helping?”

This article then is teaching that prioritized support for fellow believes in Christ or as unto family and friends is a variant and milder form of discrimination that is associated with racism. These, heretofore, natural loyalties, when prioritized, are now seen as to be examples of violation of the unspoken insistence that we must equally favor all men. This is a derivation of the idea of the Brotherhood of all men concept that has done such damage to our social order and culture. It is also a tributary of Egalitarianism. How dare we prioritize our faith, and our people, over others when we know that all relations are equal.

I would also contend that the kind of thinking, as exhibited in the article, is an attempt to undergird the whole specious idea of “white privilege,” that is bandied about so mindlessly. “How dare white people support one another with their subconscious discrimination,” would be one easy conclusion stemming from the article. This is especially so when we read the final two sentences of the article.

After reading Kaplan’s story, Banaji says, the woman decided to keep giving money to her alma mater, but to split the donation in half. She now gives half to her alma mater and half to the United Negro College Fund.

Note that neither prejudice nor discrimination has been eliminated. It has merely changed visages. Now, at the insistence of this kind of thinking, people are discriminating against their own. Favoritism has not gone away. It has merely changed from a favoritism from ones own orbit to favoritism to that which is alien. This article proves my point that familialism is an inescapable category. What is happening in the article is that the stranger and the alien are to be now considered and given the status of “family.” While family are to be treated as alien. Consequently, Familialism has not gone away for these people, it has merely rearranged matters and inverted God’s reality.

Darrell Dow has it right when he notes,

“These secular forms of universal ethics make moral demands that violate the proper boundedness and rootedness of human moral obligation. Part of the aim of Cultural Marxism is to undermine loyalty and attachment. Loyalty to family, church, ethnic group, nation, etc. as well as attachment to place are all undermined as a means of leaving the individual naked and unprotected before the state–and the elite who manipulates it. Ultimately it is a sideways attack on the church, but the church fails to recognize the nature of the threat.”

The CRC, the Banner, Rev. Bob DeMoor and Homosexuality

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In the July issue of the Banner,

http://www.thebanner.org/departments/2015/06/don-t-walk-away

soon to be departing Rev. Bob DeMoor, makes a case for the CRC denomination not fracturing over the potential future doctrinal embrace of practicing homosexuality. DeMoor’s comment are, politically speaking, quite genius. DeMoor will be leaving the Banner soon and so there is little fallout he will have to face over his advocacy of the Denomination accepting practicing homosexuality via the local option. Once Rev. DeMoor is gone, other bureaucrats can respond to complaints by merely offering, “that’s Bob, and Bob’s gone now.” In the way this has been done the next policy step has been pointed to in a very clean and surgical manner.

Rev. DeMoor implores his readers and the denomination to allow each local congregation to choose for themselves whether or not their local congregation will acknowledge the teaching of Scripture that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin. What Rev. DeMoor doesn’t tell the reader is that if such a decision was arrived at what that would mean is that those who work for the bureaucracy of the denomination (including the Seminary) would at least have to subscribe to the idea that Scripture both teaches and does not teach that homosexual practice and lifestyle is sin, or at the very least that Scripture is so ambiguous on the subject that it is a matter of adiaphora. As such, with such an embrace of the “local option” as policy the consequence would be a bureaucracy and Seminary that would, by its required muddledness on the subject, be pro-homosexual practice and lifestyle. How long could local churches hold out in upholding God’s clear word against sodomy when the whole Denominational institutional infrastructure is, at best, unable, due to denominational diktat, to be anti-homosexual lifestyle and practice?

Rev. DeMoor enjoins that the denomination should take upon itself the 1980 example of making remarriage after divorce a local option issue. Rev. DeMoor doesn’t mention that there was a long history, in the Reformed World in general, that allowed divorce after remarriage. For example, John Calvin allowed for remarriage in the context of adultery, believing that the penalty for such adultery should be death. Divorce under such circumstances gives the innocent party freedom to remarry, Calvin held, for Jesus’ condemnation of remarriage as adultery applied undoubtedly only to “unlawful and frivolous divorces.” Although Calvin was very conservative in his theological view of divorce, like Luther his practice was more liberal. His “Ecclesiastical Ordinances,” adopted by the Little and Large Councils of 1561, allowed three grounds for divorce and remarriage other than adultery: impotence, extreme religious incompatibility, and abandonment. Calvin also provided for annulment where a spouse could not, because of some physical infirmity, perform the conjugal act.

Similarly the  Westminster Confession of Faith Article 24 has taught since the 17th century,

“In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce: and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.”

We could just as easily appeal to Tyndale, Bucer, Knox and other Reformed luminaries for the acceptability of remarriage after divorce in some cases.

We conclude thus that the CRC 1980 decision had historical precedents to reverse previous Synods and to allow Churches to employ the local option on the matter of divorce and remarriage. Where are the centuries long historical precedents in the Reformed world for suggesting that homosexual practice and lifestyle is a valid option so that the determining of its acceptability can be decided on a church by church and case by case basis? Rev. DeMoor is comparing apples to bananas by suggesting a parallel can be drawn between the local option as exercised for the allowance of divorce and remarriage and the local option as exercised for the allowance of men sodomizing men and women doing whatever it is that women do to one another when sharing a “conjugal” bed.

Rev. DeMoor then asks the question if such an approach would erode our teaching to biblical commitment and then answers his own question by saying “no” and then citing Scripture that communicates, in Rev. DeMoor’s world, that unity trumps all matters. However, as has been communicated by many a Divine throughout history, Unity is always only a byproduct of shared truth. Where truth is not shared the closest to unity a organization can come to is the empty shell of administrative and bureaucratic unity. This is a unity only for the sake of unity. It is a unity that stands for nothing, that strives for nothing, and that achieves nothing. It is a mirage that progressives are forever seeing.

Rev. DeMoor would have us “have the humility, love, and grace to affirm that we may have to reexamine our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word.” This sounds so high minded and pious but what if, after reexamining our own certainties in light of what we communally discover in God’s Word, we have to say, “Here I stand against the communal discoveries, I can do no other”? My Mother always had a word for communal discoveries after I would appeal to her on that basis. Mom would simply say, “If everyone decided to jump off a cliff would you jump off with them?” Mom was pretty wise that way.

Rev. DeMoor fears denominational hemorrhaging, and well he should. However, Rev. DeMoor and others should keep in mind that hemorrhaging only happens where a wound has been inflicted on the body. The sanction and embrace of homosexual practice and lifestyle by the denomination would be a case of a self inflicted wound that results in to be expected hemorrhaging.

One thing I do agree with Rev. DeMoor and that is his observation that, “We won’t agree on what’s pastoral until we agree on what’s sinful.” There is a good deal packed into that sentence. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different visions and understandings of the Character of God. Different visions and understandings of sin, by necessity, imply different understandings of just exactly why the Lord Christ was raised upon the Cross and so raised from the grave. Different visions and  understandings of sin give us different understandings of the person and work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. In point of fact different visions and understandings of sin give us different Gods, Atonements, and Spirit filled living. Those differences give us different Christianities.

May God be pleased to grant to the Christian Reformed Church the wisdom to embrace the Christianity displayed in Holy Writ.

 


 

 

 

 

The US Policy of White European Cultural Genocide

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Bertolt Brecht

Brecht’s poem has become quite useful as we are living through a time when the State is seeking to, as Obama promised to “fundamentally transform America.” It is past apparent now that part of what Obama meant in his promise to “fundamentally transform America” was to diminish and perhaps even dissolve America of its Historic White Anglo Saxon Christian heritage.

A key rule of thumb when it comes to politics is to never listen to what politicians say but to always watch what they do. If we follow that rule of thumb we find that our political class is intent, in Brecht’s words, in dissolving the people and electing another. Thomas Fleming put it well in a recent article when he wrote, “The secret is out.  The American ruling class in both political parties despise the people they rule.  They hate their religion, their traditions, their culture, and their history.”

The evidence of this is ubiquitous. From the illegal immigration policy that has been pursued by both Republican and Democratic administrations to the tune of the relocation of 25% of Mexico’s population to these united States to IRS pursuit and harassment of overwhelmingly White Tea Party Organizations to Democratic Presidential contender Martin O’Malley apologizing for saying that not only to black lives matter but so do white lives and all lives matter to Obama’s insistence that, “We are no longer a Christian Nation,” to the SCOTUS decision to legalize sodomite marriage,” to Obama’s dowsing the White House in Rainbow Sodomite lighting in celebration of the SCOTUS decision to the exact opposite response wherein Obama initially refuses to fly the US Flag at the White House at half mast in honor of five dead white soldiers murdered by the 1965 immigration act, to the Federal Government’s recent HUD decision to bribe communities into forcefully integrating to the distribution of the 2009 Missouri Information Analysis Center report warning Missouri police against Americans who know the Constitution as potential terrorists  what has been consistently pursued by the our political class is the dissolving of America of both its White European ethnic substratum as well as the Christian faith which made the White European people the people that they have historically been.

Now when you combine all this with the recent push by many Church denominations in insisting that somehow if a White Church is not integrated then Jesus is displeased as well as the constant media push that racially blended families are the ideal what one sees is a confluence of cultural gatekeepers working to fundamentally transform America from its White European Christian roots to an America that is minority white wherein the prominent religion is cultural Marxism often masquerading and mislabeled as “Christianity.” This is not accidental and all of this borders on fulfilling the United Nations definition of “genocide.” Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as,

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1 ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

The underscoring of this is found in the recent assault of the symbols of Historic Christian America. In South Carolina, second generation Indian Nikki Haley, though Christian, testifies that she remains proud of growing up in the Sikh faith and would “never disown her roots” while finding herself more than willing to disown the roots of her White Christian constituents by taking down the St. Andrews Cross flag. In Memphis, Tennessee they’d like to disinter the remains of a White Southern Hero and his wife so as to scandalize and criminalize white Southern History. All of this is the attempt to steal the History and so the identity of a people so as to force upon them a new identity. Quoting Milan Kundera here, “The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history.” Without a past, we are not a people, we are just abstractions of the Cultural Marxist Utopian minds, to be eliminated whenever it becomes politically expedient to do so. And the expedient moment has come: The white man must be eliminated, to make way for a new people purged of the sins of the past and ready to live and strive in the new non-Christian, non-white utopia of the future.

If not ethnic genocide it is at the very least cultural genocide and always the policy of those who were intent on vanquishing and squashing conquered nations.

This policy of subjugation was captured in the film Braveheart where Uncle Argyle says to young Wallace, upon the death of their kin and as observing the midnight mourning of their clan around the grave, “They are saying goodbye in their own way. Playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes.” True, to paraphrase Lincoln, we can not absolutely know that all these moving parts are the result of a premeditated plan. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — George W., Barack, Russell Moore, and Nikki Haley, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few — not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that George W., Barack, Russell Moore, and Nikki Haley, and their many co-laborers  all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

It is simply the case, when one objectively examines the facts, that White Anglo Saxon Christian America is being subjugated by Rainbow Cultural Marxists. And though it is a sin to notice, you will forgive me if I notice when war is being waged against me and mine and if I object to my faith and my people being subjugated.

Please forgive me as I seek to wake up the remnant.

 

 

Ravi Zacharias on the “Sacredness” of Race and Ethnicity and Sexuality

“She said you know I have a problem with Christianity. And here’s my problem. Christians are generally against racism but when it comes to the homosexual they discriminate against the homosexual. How do you explain that?…

Here is want I want to say to you. The reason that we believe that discrimination ethnically is wrong is because the race and ethnicity of a person is sacred. You do not violate a person’s ethnicity and race. It is a sacred gift. And the reason we believe in an absoluteness to sexuality is because we believe sexuality is sacred as well…. You will help me if you would tell me why you treat race as sacred and desacralize sexuality.

Ravi Zacharias
6 minute mark of video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=465&v=nPYRXop7aPA

sa·cred
ˈsākrəd/
adjective
  1. connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration.

So, according to Ravi sexuality is sacred therefore one is not to marry across unnatural boundaries of sex (i.e. — men with men or women with women). Likewise, according to Ravi, race or ethnicity is likewise sacred. Therefore it would seem we must likewise conclude, according to Ravi, that one is not to marry across unnatural boundaries of sacred race just as we are not to marry across unnatural boundaries of sacred sexuality.  If both race and sexuality are sacred, per Ravi, then both race and sexuality as sacred constituent aspects of who we are and of who God created us to be and so must be respected and honored when it comes to entering into marriage. If Ravi is going to say that Christians can not abide homosexual marriage because of the sacredness of sexuality then, if race or ethnicity is equally sacred, per Ravi, how could Ravi consistently, and without contradiction, advocate that entering into inter-racial marriage is something a Christian should advocate?

Ravi might want to rethink this one. If these connections were widely made Ravi’s popularity would suffer, I’m sure.

Horror and the Modern Church

“Modern critics can not understand the genre of Horror because they can’t understand the Enlightenment, and they can’t understand the Enlightenment because they are inside it so to speak, espousing its goals; the critics, virtually to a man, espouse its values so completely they can’t conceive of any alternative to it as the project which orders their lives.”

E. Michael Jones
Monsters from the Id — pg. 296

There is something in this quote that the modern Church needs to hear as a principle. The modern Church, like Jone’s critics, too often are of little use to Christians today because the modern Church has swallowed the Enlightenment core principle of Egalitarianism. The modern Church can not fight where the fight is of most import because the modern Church is inside the Enlightenment and holds as dear to God the Enlightenment’s most core principle. This does not mean that the modern Church can never give profitable counsel. It DOES mean that any counsel the modern Church gives pertaining to the most animating issue of our time (Egalitarianism) — an issue owned by the enemy — is counsel that smells of the sulfur that besots our enemy. In the words of Pogo, In the modern Church “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

In time the modern Church will overwhelmingly fall on the sodomite marriage issue, on the Confederate flag issue, and on the Transgender issue because the modern Church owns as a principle of Christianity the core principles that drive those issues. Borrowing from Jone’s, “Egalitarianism is the project that orders their lives.”