Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
I.) Library
http://naomiwolf.org/2011/12/how-congress-is-signing-its-own-arrest-warrants-in-the-ndaa-citizen-arrest-bill/
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-of-dupe.html
II.) Lecture Hall
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91602194326
http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceonly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=gpts&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Decline+of+American+Culture
Specifically — Decline in Theology from 1900
III.) Video
This conversation was launched by this clip of Sen. Rick Santorum that reveals his pragmatism on abortion,
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/santorum-would-support-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/64yw0hd?cpkey=cadcf0db-9bec-40c2-9905-e572a76678b4
Emily Dorr
As of YESTERDAY, Santorum admits that he’s not really ‘pro-life’ by any standard that pretends to be connected to the teaching of the Bible.
Pragmatism is sin when applied to Christianity. Sadly, when sitting in church yesterday, nobody told you that.
These evangelicals will sell us all to the devil.
Kerry Culligan
Santorum supported pro- abortion Arlen Spector in the primary some years ago as a good Pennsylvania Republican as well. Iowa evangelicals have tried to pretend that he regrets that now, and wouldn’t do so again. Mind you, he never apologized or pretended to repent for that endorsement. No, these evangelical leaders are intentionally fooling themselves.
Ann Gardner Dorr
How can a law guarantee there will no longer be any abortions? Rich women will always be able to go to their docs and have a “D and C”. Poor women will go to the back alley and be injured or die. Or is that OK with all of you for them committing such a grievous sin? And, is there ever room for redemption after an abortion, or are they condemned forever? Are the fathers who encorage sn abortion equally condemned or are there degrees of condemnation? We outlaw murder yet it still occurs. Or is this the church wanting the gov’t to do their work? It truly is a moral issue and it is rare where laws can successfully legislate morality.
Bret L. McAtee
Sen. Santorum’s support for Arlen Specter, who was pro-choice, over a putative pro-life electable Republican proved to me that Santorum is just another whore politician.
Ann Gardner Dorr
Isn’t that a bit too harsh?
Bret L. McAtee
Observing that somebody is a whore politician because he flaunted his pro-life credentials and then turned around and supported somebody who was pro-death is a whore politician is to harsh?
No … actually, I think it is far to kind.
Referring to your previous comments Ann I would say that it is better if a few poor women to die by pursuing the death of their children then to have a law that supports baby killing so that rich and poor women alike can legally kill their children. Those who die in pursuing illegal abortions are only getting justice. What is unfair is that the rich avoid death in pursuing what would be illegal abortions in a culture where abortion was illegal.
Yes … God can forgive all sins but that doesn’t mean that sins that God has listed as crimes (such as murder) should not be enforced as crimes with the penalty that comes with those crimes.
Since laws can’t legislate morality, according to you, what say you about legalizing mass murder?
Ann Gardner Door
I guess my question has to do more with the separation of church from state and what is state business and what is church business? As you are aware, not everyone believes in the God that you do, yet they live in this country and according to our laws they are entitled to do that (believe differently than you and me). Since they don’t agree with your harsh judgments toward this issue, must they also be condemned to death in the back alley? I really wish Jesus was still with us to speak directly to this issue.
Bret L. McAtee
Ann, it is not possible to separate religion from the State. All Governments, including the current one, is beholden to and derivative of some religion. Why should I be satisfied with the State religion of Humanism that you find so superior over Christianity?
I am not advocating a Ecclesiocracy where the Church rules. I am advocating overthrowing the current pagan government that is ruled by a pagan religion that sanctions the torture and murder of the unborn.
Say, according to your standard why shouldn’t we allow for the Hindu custom (Sati) where widowed wives are burned with their deceased husbands on a funeral pyre? Why should these people be allowed their customs? After all, they don’t agree with our harsh judgments against wife killing.
You don’t seem to understand that all law order is a reflection of some God. Your God that you want to see the country subservient to allows for baby murder mine doesn’t. Why should you be preferred?
Ann Gardner Dorr
I really wish Jesus was still with us to speak directly to this issue. Hell, half the prophets and leaders in the old testament where “whores” by your standards. They had slaves, multiple wives, slept with their hand-maidens and had children by multiple women. I’m just trying to see where the Christ-like view on this whole issue would be. I just can’t be as harsh toward my fellow humans as some express here. I was also taught that to “judge” was God’s job, not mine.
Bret L. McAtee
The OT is full of the record of sin. That doesn’t mean that God approved of it. That’s pretty basic Ann.
The Christ-like view on this subject is the one found in Scripture. Those found guilty of murder by the testimony of two witnesses are to be executed.
Ann Gardner Dorr
I just can’t be as harsh toward my fellow humans as some express here. I was also taught that to “judge” was God’s job, not mine. I also wonder if you view abortion on some kind of “sin plane” and that it ranks as a higher degree of sin than say, lying on your taxes, or stealing from your employer.
Bret L. McAtee
Ann you are one of the harshest people I know in your advocacy of murder. It is incredible (more than incredible) to me that you can accuse me of harshness when I am trying to reverse a policy that has led to the torture and murder of 50 million people and the untold suffering of countless number of women who suffer from post traumatic abortion syndrome?
I must say that it is you that is the harsh one here Ann. Your cruelness and unfeeling character is grotesque in a high degree.
And the funny thing is, is that you are so deadened to reality that you find your cruelty to be the very nard of tender mercy.
Scripture clearly tells us that we are to judge righteously
Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. (John 7)
And yes … though all sin is worthy of punishment not all sin is equally grave. Torture and murder is definitely worse then not paying your taxes.
Ann Gardner Dorr
Trust me, I don’t advocate abortion.
Bret L. McAtee
Yes you do. Your advocating that it remain legal is a advocating for abortion. You can not advocate for its legality or accuse people who oppose it as being “harsh” and then soothe your conscience with some kind of “but I don’t like it” declaimer.
Ann Gardner Dorr
I am almost 60 and still confused by this issue. I will say, I lived before it was legal and there definitely were abortions. People were dying, lives of all sorts were being destroyed. My own father, Emily’s grandfather, on her Dad’s side, was not as adamant about the position of it being illegal. He talked about knowing young people who were deeply affected by choices they were forced to make before it was legal. I think he was troubled by it too. We talked about it at the time it became legal. Roe v Wade was ruled while I was in college. It was very controversial at that time and remains so today.
Bret L. McAtee
You don’t strike me as confused at all Ann. You strike me as very certain that torture and murder should be continued.
Nobody doubts that abortion happened before its legality. It’s always the case that whatever is illegal is transgressed by people even though it is illegal. That is why we have the word “crime.”
But the fact that it happened illegally Ann isn’t an argument that we should make it legal. If that were the case we would make all kinds of things legal only because some percentage of folks break laws.
The fact that some were aborted illegally, that some lives were ruined doesn’t mean we make it so millions more are aborted legally and that more lives are ruined.
What kind of reasoning is this on your part Ann?
Ann Gardner Dorr,
Sorry, Bret, that still seems self-righteous and harsh, to me. Just like you, I can go through my Bible and cherry pick verses to support my case of compassion over harsh judgement. And, by the way, you have no idea what I find superior as a form of gov’t. I was merely referring to our gov’t as it exists today. And, I am still curious. Does your religion view/belief put varying degrees on sin? And if so, is abortion the lowest, (or highest) level of sin, as you see it?
Bret L. McAtee
Self righteous? I want to see millions of people saved and you call me self righteous?
Do you realize how upside down your thought process is?
I challenge you to find any passage in Scripture that finds God supporting murder.
Abortion is not the highest sin. A higher sin would be people who advocate that abortion should remain legal. Their place in hell will be far deeper then a woman who had an abortion.
Mickey Bolwerk
Bret gets to the heart of the issue here, and I’m not sure there’s much more I can do than reiterate his points in my own words:
1) There is no area of neutrality. All law is religious in nature; it’s only a matter of whose religion is represented in the law code. Ann, whether you realized it or not, you are promoting the law code of humanism.
2) There is no basic dichotomy between the Old Testament and the New Testament. God is immutable, containing no contingency, no unexplored potentials. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. His standards of righteousness in the NT era are the same as those in the OT era.
By the way, John 7:53 – 8:11 is of highly questionable canonicity and, even if it was in the original text, your interpretation of it is not possible, by means of analogia scriptura (the analogy of Scripture; that is, that Scripture is internally consistent and any interpretation of Scripture leading to contradictions is incorrect). If we are to grant that it is Scriptural, then the only possible interpretations of this is that either:
1) Her accusers were themselves guilty of adultery, thus disqualifying them a witnesses, or
2) Christ refused to act in the role of the civil magistrate.Either way, if the woman was guilty of adultery, she deserved to die. As do abortionists.
Ann Gardner Dorr
All I know, is that if Jesus came to earth with an attitude like yours we would all be Jews today. Your approach comes across as ego driven serving only to show your superiority to others and would make it difficult for someone who is struggling to understand or believe. I thank God every day that Jesus was NOTHING like you. You can’t even listen to my argument, you are so set in your superior ways. I never once said I advocated abortion. My argument is/was with the approach and procedures that anti-abortionists have employed over the years that have done nothing but to harden people against your position. I think your movement has done more to promote the use and choice of abortion, merely by the words and tactics you have employed. Talk about cruel and grotesque. . .
Bret L. McAtee
Ann … are you sober or are you drinking while your write this?
Look Ann … I am far more concerned for the millions who have been tortured and slaughtered then I am about your feelings. You get on your pious high horse self-righteously accusing me of being “superior” and “self-righteous,” and “ego-driven,” while you advocate that we should be sensitive to murder and murderers.
I can’t listen to your argument because you have no argument. Besides, I’ve listened long enough to refute it… thoroughly.
Me thinketh the lady doth protest too much.
Good night Ann.
Please reconsider your position.
Ann Gardner Dorr
I’m praying for your soul tonight Bret.
Bret L. McAtee
Don’t bother wasting your time Ann because there is no God at the address your sending your prayers to because your God is a myth of your own imagination.
Ann Gardner Dorr
”I thank God every day that Jesus was NOTHING like you.”
David Opperman
I wonder what Bible Ann has been reading? It seems to me like Jesus was pretty confrontational. The Jews didn’t want him crucified because he turned water to wine…
Misty Richards
Ann – You accuse others of self-righteousness while arguing in favor of murderers who will have their own children sucked piece by piece out of their womb?? Do you understand what abortion is?? Its murder, Ann, plain and simple and all murderers should face the death penalty.
Ann Gardner Dorr
Well, “good morning” all. This has been very eye opening. Once I get past the name calling and viciousness of all of your anger I will contemplate the base of your argument. It seems as though you all are so used to this fight you are blind. I don’t advocate abortion, rape, murder or anything else I’ve been accused of here. But I certainly understand now why this debate has shut down and I’m fairly certain the laws will never change. You scared the heck out of me with your vitriole and I am sure you have that effect on others when it comes to this subject. Ears shut off, hearts close down and the beat goes on. I’m certain that is not what any of you want but your efforts last night were very effective in revealing to me who and what you are all about.
Mark Chambers
What’s the matter Ann? So ashamed of your idiot arguments that you retreat from them?
Ann Gardner Dorr
Not at all, just realize it pointless to discuss this subject with the Christian Taliban pushing your form of Sharia Law. First the abortionists, then the gays, then the public schools, etc, etc until you’ve formed the perfect society accorording to your version of God’s desires for humankind. Now I see where the left came up with their notions about all of you. No wonder they have been so successful in their fight against this agenda. No wonder over 45% of Americans no longer hold any spiritual beliefs. There is very little that is appealing to me coming from you that would draw me to your side of the spiritual fence.
You don’t care to discuss and persuade. You want to bully me into agreeing with your view of everything, then we can be all lovey and friends. No middle ground here. It’s all or nothing. I’ll chose nothing.
Bret L. McAtee
Ann,
You talk about the left and how it came up with their notions of conservative but you seem not to realize that you are the left.
You complain about our form of Sharia but just look at all the sharia that you’re pushing on us. You are pushing a kinder gentler humanist sharia of abortion with hand wringing, of government schools, of homosexuality. In your putative benign acceptance of these things you now are pushing them down our throats dear Ann.
You find us odd and displeasing but we are only what America was before the success of the cultural Marxism that now flows through your veins.
I wish there was a kinder way to oppose torture and murder of the unborn. I genuinely would like for there to be a nicer way of contending that homosexuality is an abomination that has throughout history always been the final indicator of a culture that is in disintegration. I’ve prayed daily that I could find a softer way of telling people that government schools are poison to the souls of our children. But these truths do not allow a “smile in your face while I disembowel you” approach.
Imagine me weeping for you and for the countless numbers like you dear sweet Ann. My tears fall first because of your hostility towards the God of the Bible and His Lord Christ. My tears then fall because I know what your end is and it saddens me beyond naming. My tears fall for all the harm you are doing in your belief system to countless numbers of people. If my weeping would convince people of their hatred and vileness I would take my weeping public and weep before the world.
But it would do no good because people like you would still come back and hurl insults at me because of my desire to protect you, and other people, and you would hurl insults at my desire to see the end of the culture of death which your worldview supports.
Believe me Ann, when I tell you, that if I thought that I could be successful by changing anything in my approach or methodology I would change but having tried every which way, I know that it is not my methodology that turns people off but it is my insistence that the God of the Bible must be kissed lest he be angry and people like you perish in the way.
With deep affection for you but with even more for the Sovereign of the universe,
Humanism is our God and Democracy is the religion. I would then say that the priests are the Government school teachers and the Psyschologists. The Kings are the magistrates and the Prophets are the Journalists in the main stream media. The Government school curriculum is the catechism that is taught to the youth. Top 40 music is Humanists hymns and Psalms. The sacraments are abortion (a bloody ritual that keeps the humanist God’s appeased) and the vote (the sacrament that we return to over and over again to proclaim unity with our humanist God). Entitlements are how the State as God provides for us and saves us. The teleology of our Humanist religion is the Babel State where all distinctions among men are eliminated.
We must keep in mind though that contemporary humanism is not a monotheistic religion. Contemporary Humanism has many incarnational variations. For example one variation would give us the feminist goddess Gaia. For Gaia and the Feminists the priestess-hood is the female professional woman (politician, minister, or bureaucrat). Her sacrifice is her femininity purchased through economic independence from men. She is incensed over the unforgivable sin of genuine male masculinity and she fights that sin with rabid support for Ritalin for little boys and by Lesbianism for herself. The teleology for Feminism is the achievement of the androgynous.
I.) In the Library
http://darashpress.com/articles/natural-law-summary-and-critique
“http://http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/01/teachers%E2%80%99-union-reportedly-plans-to-%E2%80%98liberate%E2%80%99-children%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98identity%E2%80%99-with-%E2%80%98gender-liberation%E2%80%99/
http://www.survivalblog.com/2012/01/never_surrender–a_resolution.html
II.) Audio Lecture Hall
http://chalcedon.edu/research/audio/the-crisis-ahead-and-our-christian-responsibility/
III.) Video Documentary
A.) Exposing Propaganda and Public Brainwashing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM
B.) Government Schools and the New World Order
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezTIYd5UFRY
Ask RC: Is it a sin to marry outside ones race?
It is interesting that increasingly certain high profile leaders of Evangelicalism find themselves compelled to deal with the issue of inter-racial marriage. R.C. 2.0 seems to return to it with some regularity. John Piper is forever harping on the subject. It is also interesting that very few black preachers are giving the same answer to this question as most white Evangelicals are giving to this question. What black preachers are standing up and saying that it is sin for black families to oppose giving their daughters to white men?
R.C. 2.0 now “answers” his question.
“Yes, of course. Happily, in every jurisdiction I am aware of, it is not even legally possible to marry outside ones race. Though there are some arguing that such should be legal, even the “gay” “marriage” movement, by and large, disdains the notion. The Bible is abundantly clear that marriage is only for those of the human race, and to extend the institution beyond that is wrong.”
The confusion here is thick.
1.) R.C. 2.0 confuses race with species. The question that we began with was not, “Is it sin to marry outside of one’s species,” but was instead, “is it a sin to marry outside of one’s race.” Does R.C. 2.0 really believe that there are Christians somewhere confused over whether or not God approves of marriage outside of one’s species?
2.) Why introduce the issue of legality? Even if it were legally possible to marry outside of one’s species would that legality make any difference on whether or not such a marriage was sinful or not?
3.) It is not possible to extend the institution of marriage so that, for example, a man and a horse could marry. The word “marriage” has a objective meaning that can not be extended beyond men and women.
Within the circle of humanity, God does provide a number of other prohibitions. Marriage, for instance, is, according to the Bible, one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4 -5). Marriage is also only between either two believers, or two unbelievers (II Corinthians 6:14). Leviticus 18 gives us the laws of consanguinity, affirming that we may not marry those who are too close kin. The Bible forbids marrying those who have been illegitimately divorced (Matthew 19:9). The only other biblical prohibition that I am aware of is that one cannot divorce, marry another spouse, and then, after a second divorce, or the death of the second spouse, remarry the first (Deuteronomy 24:4).
Does the Bible forbid marrying outside ones culture, ones skin color, ones nation? By no means. Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 gives explicit warrant for a Jewish man to take a wife from among the women of a conquered nation. Though not as compelling, we in turn have biblical examples of godly men who married outside their national identity- Moses and his Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1), and of course Boaz and Ruth..
1.) One man and one woman. Normatively that is true, although there might be times where the non-normative might rear its head in the kind of polygamy we find in the Old Testament.
2.) Marriage is to be between two believers who share commonality. R.C. 2.0 certainly wouldn’t advocate that as long as a 80 year old woman and a 18 year old man were both Christians it therefore would be normatively the proper thing for them to marry. So, yes we agree that as far as Christians go they are to marry only other believers but we would add that they are only to marry other believers with whom there exists a shared extensive commonality between the two marrying — a extensive commonality that the common ground of both being Christian might not bridge. The man who is marrying is looking for a “Helpmeet” which means one who is a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. A man and a woman might both be Christian but because there cultures are so significantly different it still might be a sin of lack of wisdom of them to marry.
R. J. Rushdoony could offer on this point,
“Moreover, if she is to be ‘a help as before him,’ a mirror, there must be a common cultural background. This militates against marriages across cultures and across races where there is no common culture or association possible.
The new unit is a continuation of the old unit but an independent one; and there has to be a unity or else it is not a marriage. Thus, the attempt of many today to say there is nothing in the Bible against mixed marriages whether religiously or culturally is altogether unfounded. We do not have to go to the Mosaic law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) to demonstrate that, because here in the very beginning (Genesis) we are told that she must be a help meet—bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh—sharing his faith, sharing a common background, a common culture, a common desire to fulfill his calling under God. This, then, is the meaning of marriage in the Biblical sense.”
R.J. Rushdoony,
The Doctrine of Marriage
3.) We agree with R.C. 2.0’s theonomic reasoning where he affirms that the Old Testament law still applies in order to provide boundaries as to degrees of acceptable consanguinity for marriage and where the law forbids divorce and later remarriage to the previously divorced spouse subsequent to yet another divorce from a subsequent wife. Would that all Christians would reason with this kind of excellent theonomic mindset.
4.) Now we turn to the R.C. 2.0’s insistence that the Bible does not forbid inter-racial marriage, and I would say that is true to the same degree that the Bible does not forbid polygamy or trans-ageist marriages. I would say that just as there is no outright forbidding of polygamy in Scripture so there is no outright forbidding of inter-racial marriage and there is no outright forbidding of 85 year old Christian men marrying 16 year old Christian women. However, in all cases such marriages clearly are normatively not the better part of wisdom and so would be sinful to pursue.
R.C. 2.0 makes appeal to Deuteronomy 21:11 but I do not think this really works for him for this passage is referring to defensive wars that Israel was fighting, and as such, there are a couple of things here to keep in mind in considering Deuteronomy 21:11 as a proof text.
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife,
First, these wars fought by Israel would have been fought against local semitic nations who were closely related to Israel. Therefore these marriages were more akin to a Norman man taking and then marrying a Scott woman as booty of war then a Victorian Christian Woman marrying a Christian Hottentot man completely outside the context of war. We are not really talking inter-racial marriage in Deuteronomy 21.
Second, this could not have included Canaanites, who the Israelites were forbidden to marry.
Third, this is by no means an expression of what God considers normative for marriage. Deut. 21 also regulates but allows polygamy, but we wouldn’t cite Deut. 21 to defend the idea that polygamy is normative.
Fourth, even were we to use Deuteronomy 21:11 as a proof text it would not prove what R.C. is seeking to prove but would only prove that when Christians today go to war they may take war brides from peoples closely ethnically related to them. I’n not advocating that Deuteronomy 21:11 teaches such. I am saying that if you try to use it the way R.C. is trying to use it that is all it could teach.
5.) Doubtless R.C. 2.0 knows that the Reformed interpreters throughout the years have not agreed that Moses married a second wife. In point of fact if one examines the notes from the original Geneva Bible you will find advanced there what you find advanced by Matthew Henry and others that Moses did not marry a second wife.
Zipporah, Moses wife, was a Midianite, and because Midian bordered on Ethiopia, it is sometimes referred to in the scriptures by this name.
Likewise there is considerable debate as to whether Ruth the Moabitess was a Jew who had relocated to Moab earlier or whether she was a original inhabitant of Moab. However, in both cases, as R.C. himself says, these argument are hardly compelling.
“There have, in the past, been fine and godly men who have argued otherwise. There are likely some fine and godly men who would still so argue. The Bible, however, despite the level of detail to which it does go on whom we may or may not marry, does not so argue. The ancient creeds of the church make no such argument. The great confessional statements of the Reformation make no such argument.
R. C. fails to mention here that the reason that these issues were never spoken to confessionally is that there has never been a need to speak confessionally to these issues. During the time of the Westminster Confession who was advocating for Cultural Marxism or Globalism or Multiculturalism? Since no one was advocating such philosophies, therefore we would not expect them to be dealt with confessionally.
The Bible nor the Confessions also do not spell out that we should not marry our tender aged sons to octogenarian women and yet who among us would suggest that because it does not speak in detail to such a situation therefore it is perfectly acceptable?
Some have argued that my own position is grounded in worldliness. Those outside the church are always seeking to break down barriers, to deconstruct cultures. Miscegenation, my critics would argue, plays right into the hands of the political and theological left. I would offer two retorts. First, a healthy understanding of the antithesis, of the great battle between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman doesn’t mean we are to be reactionary, that we are to embrace the opposite of what the world embraces always and everywhere. We aren’t called to walking on our hands because the unbelievers walk on their feet. Because those outside the kingdom of God retain the remnants of the image of God, we should expect to agree with them from time to time.
First, we must note that R.C. 2.0’s position does indeed play into the hands of the Cultural Marxists. We see how R.C. 2.0 is playing into the hands of the Cultural Marxists through this quote from R. J. Rushdoony,
“Now in the religion of humanism, the faith of the one world order, man is deified, and because man is deified and personified in this world order there can be no division, no disunity tolerated in the Godhead. As a result this means that the unity of mankind is a necessity. There can be no division, no differences, no separation, no discrimination between man and man in this (humanist) faith. All men must be brought together and made one without any differences. To permit any differences is to destroy the unity of the godhead….
But in any such theology the basic sin becomes no longer apostasy from God or what we would call moral evil but disunity. And they among the churches who are infected with this kind of thinking which have made the one world order their substitute God. And among those who are outside of the churches, the great sin is disunity. And different races, different churches, different organizations must all be brought together. And war which separates men and discrimination which separates men constitutes the real evil.”
So, we appreciate R.C. understanding why we are concerned about his position being born of “worldliness.”
R.C. invoking common grace is merely a begging of the question. Yes, there are times where we will agree with those who despise Christianity but the fact that there may be such times hardly proves that this is one of those times or one of those issues where we will or should agree.
“Second, even a cursory glance of the literature demonstrates that it is actually those who argue against marrying outside ones culture, that were most influenced by worldly wisdom. Darwin’s theory of evolution created a paradigm by which even Christians began to judge one “race” as genetically superior to another. It is true enough that some cultures are better than others. What makes one culture superior, however, isn’t genetics, but the impact of the Christian faith. Low levels of melanin didn’t build Europe, the gospel did. Matching levels of melanin in turn won’t make a godly marriage. The gospel will. Away with legalism that adds to God’s perfect law.
1.) Note that R.C. seems not to have a solid grip on the idea of culture. If culture is merely theology externalized, as many Christians insist, (more on that later) then advocating that a Christian might marry outside their culture, is a advocacy for marrying outside one’s Christian theology, if their culture is a faithful approximation of their Christ exalting theology. One simply cannot dismiss cultural issues when it comes to marriage as if those cultural issues are so much unnecessary flotsam and jetsam. Culture matters and for Christians to marry willy nilly across cultural barriers is not wise.
There also seems to be a latent assumption here by R.C. that all Christian cultures will look the same, as if a Christian culture of Japanese would be the same as the Christian Culture of Belorussians therefore meaning that Christians Japanese and Christians Belorussians would be a God approved match for marriage. And yet, do we really need to conclude that all genuinely Christian cultures will look alike?
2.) R.C. really must be aware that the whole concept of race well predates Darwin. No less than Shakespeare would incorporate race into at least eight of his plays as the great bard examined the inevitable frictions between the races in a way palatable to theatergoers. Such recognition of race in other literature also long predates Darwin. To suggest a racial consciousness is only explained by Darwin could be taken as an attempt to poison the well against those who disagree with R.C. 2.0’s muffled and muted multiculturalism.
3.) We half way agree with R.C. on the issue of melanin and culture building. Clearly, the acceptance of Biblical Christianity goes a long way towards explaining how culture advances. We would even argue that beautiful culture is not possible apart from Biblical Christianity. However, we think R.C. and those who reason like him communicate a denial regarding man’s humanity turning man into some kind of Gnostic being. It is true that what a man and men believes and believe has huge impact on what a man becomes and builds. We might call this man’s spiritual dimension. However, it is also true that what a man is, genetically and physically, has a huge impact on what a man becomes and builds. I can no more ignore my humanity when it comes to culture building then I can ignore my belief system. This is why we insist that culture is not merely theology externalized but rather would add that culture is theology externalized as that theology is poured over ethnicity. Yes, Europe is explained by the spread of Christianity but it is also explained by the physicality and genetic coding of the Europeans — physicality and genetic coding that was ordained and given solely by the grace of God — that built Europe as that Christianity was embraced by those very real humans. Men are more then just Gnostic beings with ideas floating around in their heads. Who they are in their divinely given corporeality matters.
4.) When R.C. throws the charge of legalism around (after throwing around the charge of Darwinism) he betrays how much angst this issues causes him. Earlier he noted that fine and godly men have argued differently from him but now he calls those fine and godly men Legalist and Darwinist. Which is it R.C.?
5.) R.C. seeks to reduce race to the issue of melanin. Such a view reveals again what a reductio view of our corporeal humanness that R.C. has. Anyone who has dealt with other races realizes that race is much much more then merely melanin.
That is why we are having this discussion.
6.) Where R.C. gets off in charging people who disagree with him as “Legalist” is quite beyond me. I wonder if he would mind too terribly in providing documentation where people are adding the work of proper marriage to God’s grace in order to be saved?