View Full Version : Liberal ELCA Bishop Anti-White?

Saturday, November 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM
The Unbearable Whiteness of Being Lutheran[James Fulford (jamesfulford@vdareedit.com)]- 10/24/04 Father Richard Neuhaus quotes Mark Hanson, (http://www.elca.org/bishop/meet.html)the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (http://www.elca.org/),as saying (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0410/public.html#while) that Lutherans should feel guilty about being too white.

For instance, “It better trouble us that the ELCA is still 94 percent descendants of European immigrants in this wonderfully rich and pluralistic country.” Bearing the cross of Scandinavian (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/scandinavia.htm)or German (http://www.vdare.com/pb/proposition_nation.htm)ancestry is not easy. The ELCA leadership suffers from a deep sense of guilt about being noninclusive in a wondrously inclusive culture. Guilt about being noninclusive is joined to the galling realization that there are not a lot of people interested in being included in the ELCA. To paraphrase a Pauline passage (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Romans+7:24,25)so important to Luther, “Who will deliver the ELCA from this body of demographic sin?”

Since it is improbable that millions of blacks, Latinos, or Filipinos are going to join up any time soon, it seems that, for the members of the ELCA, salvation must be by faith alone, combined with profound contrition for being who they are. As it happens, there are many very nice people and devout Christians in the ELCA. I used to be one myself. (Not unusually nice or devout, but I was in the ELCA.) They and their church would, I expect, be more generally appreciated were they not so touchingly eager to catch up with the cutting edge of a culture to which the community of faith is to be not a mirror but a contrast. As for “troubling” aspects of the gospel, being descended from European (http://www.vdare.com/francis/gilmore.htm)immigrants doesn’t even make the list, except by conveniently eliminating the real sins (http://www.vdare.com/allen/refugees.htm)for which Lutherans (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/refugee_industry.htm), along with the rest of us, must plead forgiveness.

http://www.vdare.com/blog/102404_blog.htm (http://www.vdare.com/blog/102404_blog.htm) The article is at the bottom of the page.

Wednesday, December 1st, 2004, 03:30 AM
For what it's worth, I read somewhere that nearly 99% of American Lutherans are white. Presumably the vast majority are of German or Scandinavian ancestry. I think LCMS and WELS churches tend to be mainly German while the ELCA is heavily Scandinavian as well as German.

I am an ELCA Lutheran, and I love the ELCA: they are great people, but it's true that sometimes ELCA leadership is too left-wing. On the other hand, the other two Lutheran churches in the USA, the Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Synod, are both really conservative, and they tend to make guests (non-LCMS or non-WELS people) feel like outsiders, whereas ELCA is more friendly and benevolent (at least those are the stereotypes, who knows how true they are across the board)

Hreidmar: It says you are a Lutheran, which church do you belong to (if any): ELCA, LCMS, or WELS ?

Monday, December 6th, 2004, 03:36 AM
Alas, the decline of the Lutheran churches... Martin Luther himself must be spinning in his grave.

However I find your churches intriguing. What does the abbervations stand for? Would one feel at home there if one chances by? Are the churches widespread? Like, are there lutheran churches in many cities? Can you tell the differens from other protestant churches in america? Why are there more than one lutheran church anyway?

In Sweden we have had a single church for 500 years, simply called the Church of Sweden. It was separated from the State in 2000...;(

However, why would a scandinavian/germanic heritage be a heavy cross to bear?

Monday, December 6th, 2004, 05:26 AM
What does the abbervations stand for?ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It is the biggest Lutheran Church in the USA with about 6 million members. It is the most 'centrist' (i.e. not as conservative as the others) of the Lutheran Churches in USA, it accepts women as pastors, for instance. It was formed in 1988 when several smaller Lutheran Churches joined together. It is a largely Scandinavian church (I think all of the Scandinavian churches in the USA merged into the ELCA), but there are Germans as well.

LCMS - Lutheran Chuch--Missouri Synod. This is a conservative, mainly German Church, it does not accept women as pastors, and it has about 2.7 million members. Probably the most conservative major Lutheran church in the world.

WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the most conservative Lutheran church in the USA, but with only about 500,000 members, mainly German.

In total there are about 9 million members of Lutheran churches in the USA. But according to several independent studies that universities and others have done, about 10% of white Americans (20 million people) are self-described Lutherans, but most are not church-members.

Would one feel at home there if one chances by?The ELCA and LCMS make fun of each other a lot, but it’s not real animosity.

Are the churches widespread? Like, are there lutheran churches in many cities?Oh yes, in every major city there are Lutheran churches. There are more than 10,000 ELCA Churches in the US!

In the Midwest, all the large cities have lots of Lutheran churches, medium-sized cities in the Midwest almost always have at least one Lutheran church, and many small towns even have a Lutheran church in the Midwest. Something like 1/3rd of whites in the Upper Midwest are Lutherans (the Upper Midwest was the main destination of Scandinavian immigrants, and lots of Germans settled there too)

Can you tell the differens from other protestant churches in america?Yes, generally you can

Why are there more than one lutheran church anyway? Today there are only 3 major ones, but there used to be dozens of Lutheran Churches in the USA, with names like "The German Lutheran Church of America", "The Norwegian Lutheran Church of America" , "United Danish Evangelical Lutheran Church", "The Swedish Augustana Evangelical Lutheran Church”.

So the reason that there were so many was because all the immigrant groups that came to America from Lutheran countries formed their own churches years and years ago; since then most have gradually merged into the ELCA.

However, why would a scandinavian/germanic heritage be a heavy cross to bear?I have no idea, I didn't understand that either

Thursday, December 22nd, 2005, 04:46 AM
Father Richard Neuhaus quotes Mark Hanson, the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America,as saying that Lutherans should feel guilty about being too white.
I goto a conservative Christian college, and we had a visitor chapel speaker one day, and he sounded a lot like this guy. He said churches today don't have enough minorities in them, and went on to say basically that every church should go out of its way to balance out the racial numbers of the church. This is pretty ridiculous. Not that I'm against allowing minorities into church, I'm all for it, the message must be spread. But it must not be overlooked, that often it is unsettling for a minority to goto a church filled with a white majority racial makeup. My hometown has a growing Hispanic community, and my church is founding a church in this same town for the Hispanic community, simply because if they have their own church it will be much more efficient and comfortable for them. The situation changes for every region and town, but that's my two cents.

Monday, February 20th, 2006, 05:24 AM
Perhaps the following message will help shed some light on the subject of interracial churches. Biblical Christianity has always taught racial separation. Georgia

Kinism (shorter version)
A speech delivered to the Virginia League of the South, Lexington, VA
September 25, 2004

• By H. Seabrook (harry@littlegeneva.com) •


In the preface to his book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, R.L. Dabney writes: “To the conquerors of my native State, and perhaps to some of her sons, a large part of the following defense will appear wholly unseasonable. A discussion of a social order totally overthrown...will appear as completely out of date to them as the ribs of Noah’s ark, bleaching amidst the eternal snows of Ararat, to his posterity, when engaged in building the Tower of Babel.”
You have heard today about the danger facing us, the potential death of the West, and our defense of kinism is wholly unseasonable to those who welcome the impending genocide. It is they who deny that race is real, assert that even if it is real, it’s not important; and even if it’s real and important, it’s wrong to discuss it. They have been trained to identify racism as the greatest problem facing us, and to deny, in the very next breath, that races exist. Well, one of the problems we face is that most people don’t know how to define a word like racism. I submit that racism is the belief that races other than one’s own are sub-human, or the belief that one’s race will be the only race in heaven. Kinism, on the other hand, is the benign awareness that homogeneous social structure breeds trust, and therefore safety. I further submit that the founding race of any nation has the right to determine its ethnic composition and its citizenship. As Jared Taylor reminds us: “If it is ‘racist’ to prefer the company of people of one’s race, to prefer the culture created by one’s race, and to want one’s race to survive and flourish, then virtually everyone of every color is ‘racist,’ and the term has no useful meaning.”
The Virginia League of the South statement on kinism begins this way: “It is time to discuss the racial issue intelligently. Ignoring it will not make it go away.” Amen! As Scott Trask says, “A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.” Our race does not buy us a ticket to heaven, but if common stock is the foundation of our nation, it is, as Trask says, “more important even than a common language, culture, political allegiance, or locale. The Bible praises homogeneity as a blessing, and posits it as the basis of love, friendship, social peace, and national harmony. The Bible also sanctions love of nation and fatherland, a virtue antagonistic to indiscriminate and large-scale immigration... The modern desire for global unity, amalgamation of peoples, destruction of territorial boundaries, English as a universal language, and construction of a world government is difficult to see as anything other than a sinful desire to rebuild the Tower of Babel and create an autonomous humanistic order independent of God. It is a rebellious project that defies God’s plan for world order based on discrete nations each residing within its own lands... [This] project for global unity sullies the beauty and diversity of God’s human creation, in that it suggests that the existence of different races, which vary markedly in physical appearance, is a mistake that man is to remedy by racial intermarriage. In this warped version of creation, God is the bungler and man the redeemer.” Such lies emanate even from churches and what are called “conservative” political parties. We have Billy Graham saying that Christians have a duty to foster total racial integration “in our homes, in our worship services, even in our marriages.” And we have “B-1 Bob” Dornan, former Republican congressman from Southern California, saying: “I want to see America stay a nation of immigrants, and if we lose our Northern European stock—your coloring and mine, blue eyes and fair hair—tough! So what if 5,000 years from now we’re all going to have a golden tan... We’re all going to be blended together because of travel, and because of the information highway.” Now you know why the Amish refuse to drive cars. Trask continues: “It therefore seems a bad joke to speak of Christian conservatives or the Christian Right, for there is nothing conservative about acquiescing in a demographic revolution to turn whites into a minority... European Christians should be on their guard against socialists posing as Christians, for the socialistic dream of racial reconciliation and world unity leads to nothing less than the extinction of Europeans as a separate people and the destruction of their civilization. Christians must stand in defense against those who would—in the name of Christ—have us abandon our lands and our people.”
“The America of our grandchildren will be another country altogether,” says Pat Buchanan, “a nation unrecognizable to our parents, a giant Brazil of the North... By 2050, there will be scores of millions of people living here whose loyalty is to a foreign country... If, by 2050, the America we grew up in has become a Tower of Babel of squabbling minorities that is falling apart, it will be because of the treason of the elites, and our lack of will to overthrow them.”
The new Tower of Babel is being erected at an alarming pace. Let me read to you some quotes by some of the men promoting world citizenship and pushing the idea that our country is a Dream, an Idea, a Proposition, and an Experiment rather than a particular place founded by particular people.
Bill Clinton says: “We want to become a multiracial, multiethnic society. This will arguably be the third great revolution...to prove that we literally can live without...having a dominant European culture.”
Democrat Presidential Candidate Wesley Clark says : “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states. Our goal is that after this year, it will no longer be possible for those who support ethnically separate communities to believe that they can succeed.”
The Humanist Manifesto II: “We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government.”
The American Jewish Committee: “Americanism is the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of all races, all religions, all nationalities.”
“Something is happening,” says Ben Wattenberg. “We are becoming the first universal nation in history... If you believe, as the author does, that the American drama is being played out toward a purpose, then the non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”
From King George the Lesser’s inaugural speech, January 20, 2001: “ America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our background, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be a citizen.”
Andrew Sandlin of the Center for Cultural Leadership says: “Blood and soil mean much less here than ideas. Not race or place, but ideas, have always been at the root of what it means to be an American.”
Jesse Jackson says: “To be an American is not a matter of blood or birth. Our citizens are bound by ideals that represent the hope of all mankind.”
Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated the anti-Christian idea that all should possess “exactly the same rights, not merely legal, but social and spiritual” said: “Americanism is a question of principles, of idealism, of character: it is not a matter of birthplace or creed or line of descent.”
George William Curtis said: “A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.”
Adam Clayton Powell said: The “best thing that could happen would be the passing of the white man’s world [which] has stood for nationalism, oppression, and barbarism.”
Rabbi Abraham Feinberg says: “The law should encourage, not forbid, the intermingling of bloods... The only way we can accomplish...a Final Solution to racial prejudice, is to create a [mixture] of races... The deliberate encouragement of interracial marriages is the only way to hasten this process... we will never completely eliminate racial prejudice until we eliminate separate races.”
Brock Chisholm, former Director of the U.N. World Health Organization, said: “What people everywhere must do is practice birth control and miscegenation in order to create one race in one world under one government. The ideal skin for a human being is a coffee-colored skin.”
Nicole Mullen, a contemporary Christian singer, took his advice. She sings of her family: “Mama looks like coffee, daddy looks like cream, baby is a mocha drop American dream...”
According to Sean Hannity, Jesus Christ died on the cross for interracial dating. Bill O’Reilly has said that the government should sponsor interracial dances. You get the idea.
This indoctrination is producing the desired effect. As Michael Olwen says, “The White Race makes up only 8% of the world’s population, and is declining at that, yet it is more likely to practice vasectomy, tubal ligation, or other means of birth control than any other group. Further, even if the average White Man is physically intact, he is still as much of a eunuch as the guard of an Ottoman harem, perhaps even more so. His castration has been subtle but sure; his neutering has been both mental and spiritual. He is a human steer, placidly standing in his field chewing his cud, carefully not giving offense to the bulls who rut with the cows that were once his. Quiet, calm and cooperative, he will stand back from the trough while they eat his food, and when that final truck comes, he will climb aboard with little urging. Disembarking and making his way down the bloody chute, he may, with his final thought, dare to wonder what that man with the bloody apron is doing standing at the end with the sledgehammer in hand.”
I think Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber said it well: “From the Church’s point of view there is no objection whatever to racial research and race culture. Nor is there any objection to the endeavor to keep national characteristics of a people as far as possible pure and unadulterated, and to foster their national spirit by emphasis upon the common ties of blood to unite them. From the Church’s point of view we must make only three conditions: First, love of one’s race must not lead to the hatred of other nations. Secondly, the individual must never consider himself freed from nourishing his own soul by persevering use of the means of grace which the Church provides. The young man who is always hearing about the blessedness of his own race is apt too easily to conceive that he is no longer bound by duties to God and His Church, duties to humility and chastity. Thirdly, race culture must not assume an attitude of hostility to Christianity.”
This is all very true, but sadly, politically correct Christians are willfully ignorant of race. Sam Francis writes: “Almost literally every time I have argued or debated about race in a public forum, I get a response from whites of quoting the Bible verse of Galatians 3:28 — ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’ This verse apparently has become the basic text for Christian universalism and race denial, although if it were interpreted as literally as those who use it for that purpose do, it would also deny the existence of sexual differences, a conclusion that is not only absurd but would appear to gut the Christian argument against gay marriage.” And this is exactly correct. The very same interpretation that denies racial distinction also logically undercuts rejection of feminism and sodomy.
According to Dr. Ron Rumburg, “Galatians 3:28 is perhaps the most abused text in modern times. Klyne R. Snodgrass in an article asserted, ‘This text, like some others, has become a hermeneutical skeleton key by which we may go through any door we choose. More often than not, Galatians 3:28 has become a piece of plastic that people have molded to their preconceived ideas’... It is a long way from no difference in salvation in the spiritual realm to destroying all differences in race, authority or sex in the physical world. The result of such an interpretation would be anarchy.”
Everyone has heard the term “melting pot.” What you might not know is that it was coined by a Jew named Israel Zangwill, who wrote that America had become a “melting pot...[of] the races of Europe.” You can see how the meaning has been changed. Now men are taught that the bond of kinship is easily interchangeable. The truth is that n ations are born of likeness but die of diversity.
A Harvard professor named Samuel Huntington has written a book called Who Are We? Now, healthy nations don’t even need to ask such a question. They know who they are. But nations who sell their birthright to the lowest bidder and preach lies such as “diversity is our greatest strength” must inevitably ask such questions. They have forgotten who they are. Huntington argues that there is an “Anglo-Protestant core” to our country, which is controversial enough, but he writes in the Foreword to his book: “This is, let me make clear, an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant culture, not for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people.” He must think our culture just boiled out of the ground one sunny day. Of course it’s an argument for the importance of Anglo-Protestant people!
When we say we love the South, we mean that we love the Southern people. And make no mistake – the Southern people are white Christians descended from the north and west of Europe; the very same Americans who founded and sought to preserve the old republic. Take them away and the South ceases to be Southern. Likewise, when white Christians have ceased, Western Civilization will have ceased. There is nothing particularly wrong with Mexicans, Asians, and blacks, but don’t expect them to carry our heroes, myths, and traditions into the 22nd century. They have heroes, myths, and traditions of their own. No one else is going to maintain the culture we inherited from our ancestors. No one else is interested. Mexicans, Asians, and blacks are not going to be impressed by anyone waxing nostalgic about the good old days of Anglo-Protestantism, and they certainly could not care less about the Confederacy.
Srdja Trifkovic writes: “The notion that there are lands, countries, and nations - specifically, in Europe and North America - that should be defended by virtue of being ‘ours’ seems both strange and subversive to the members of the elite. They share Samuel Huntington’s dictum that the core concepts of our civilization are supposed to be individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets, the separation of church and state. They reject the suggestion that Christianity, the shared ethnic and linguistic origins of the European family, and that family’s common historical experiences are at all relevant...”
John Jay, signer of the Declaration of Independence and first Chief Justice of the United States, said: “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs,” without whom a common, let alone a free, government could not have existed. We used to be a nation bound by common purpose, common religion, common language, common race. We shared the same culture, traditions, history, aspirations, interests, and roots. We held firmly to English concepts of the rule of law and the Puritan work ethic. But today we are in decline because there are too many Christians who think pagans are their equals. There are too many sons of the pioneers who think that all other people in the world are Americans in embryo. There are too many who see nothing wrong with selling our birthright for a heathen pledge to a heathen flag. To be an ‘American’ these days, one must be disinherited, deracinated, and have filled out the proper forms.
“Without a common culture to unite us,” writes Mike Tuggle, “‘US citizens’ have no more in common than the random assortment of residents at a New Jersey extended stay motel. Who are we? What are our values? What will we fight for? The idea that we are now a ‘proposition nation’ inspired by the nobility of an abstract notion of universal brotherhood will work no better here than it did in the old Soviet Union… Love of one’s own people always trumps empty abstractions.”
As Jared Taylor says, “We cannot expect people who have nothing in common with each other but the legal abstraction of citizenship to work or sacrifice for the common good.” We have nothing in common but a government that supplies us with worthless currency. We have become a giant mall for mankind and a polyglot boarding house for the world. Tacitus said of the Roman empire in its decline, “Baths, piazzas, and sumptuous feasts were called by the ignorant people civilization. They were in reality the elements of slavery.” That perfectly describes our condition today.
I’m sad to say that I was told by a Reformed pastor that God intends to remake the family. He quoted Matthew 10:34-36: “Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” In fact, the Bible doesn’t say a word about remaking the family. Matthew 10:34-36 means exactly what it says - that the love for our families is not to be greater than our love for the Lord. Yet even the wicked care for their own according to the flesh. Even the infidel cherishes his family. What man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household [referring to both an immediate and extended family], he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).
Though the Bible tells us that God divided humanity into “nations,” which is a racial term, like the word natal, the neo-Babelist believes that geography rather than race determines citizenship. “Cross that boundary and you’re an American! Pass our multiple choice quiz and you’re an American!” They reason that the Old Testament people of God had a national identity, but today the church has only a spiritual identity. They don’t care about maintaining an ethnic balance, as our forefathers did, because they don’t care about the future of our people. They deny that our people (by blood) are our people! And the immediate assumption is that those of us who acknowledge the divisions that God Himself imposed on mankind want to keep the gospel to ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As Douglas Wilson says, “You do not teach children to appreciate other cultures by teaching them to despise their own. A child who loves and honors his own mother is far more likely to appreciate that someone else loves and honors his own mother.” This is very true, although as Hermann Goering said, “When I hear the word culture, I reach for my pistol.” We’re talking primarily about race, which British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli called the key to world history. Contempt for your own race leads to contempt of all races, which is hatred of men and revolution against God.
So national unity is inseparably bound to ethnic unity. Genesis 10:5 bears this out when it says that “the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.” The Apostle Paul was a Cilician by birth, a Roman by citizenship, a Greek by language, and a Christian by faith. But how did he describe his nationality? Did he say that he belonged to a world race of Christians? No, he claimed to be “of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews.” The Bible tells us that there will be multiple nations in heaven rather than one nation of the Christians of the world. There are nations in the earth, according to Psalm 102: “The nations will fear the name of the LORD, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory.” There are nations in heaven, according to Revelation 21: “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it... The glory and honor of the nations [plural] will be brought into it.” These two passages sound the same.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn believed “that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”
As John Vinson says, “Nationhood is not an arbitrary human arrangement, but a principle of divine order. The separation of vastly different peoples helps reduce conflict and promote fruitful diversity. Massive uncontrolled immigration defeats God’s order. Love and compassion fare poorly in chaos - and also in the tyranny that follows chaos.”
John Calvin said it well: “Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries. God, by his providence, reduces to order that which is confused.”
From one blood God created all men. Does this mean that all races should be allowed to intermarry, simply because they can? The races of Seth and Cain intermarried in Genesis 6, simply because they could. God was so displeased with this miscegenation that He destroyed the world because of it.
Ken Ham, author of the book [I]One Blood, says there is no such thing as interracial marriage because there is no such thing as biological race. There is only a race of Christians and a race of non-Christians. The great R.L. Dabney affirmed “that ‘God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,’” but he said that nothing except amalgamation or subordination “can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity.”
R.J. Rushdoony said that if a woman is truly to be a helpmeet to her husband, she “must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.”
God did not even want his twelve tribes to intermarry, even though they all had the same religion. T he case of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36 leads to this decree: “Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe. So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers.” The modern Christian, thoroughly immersed in the cult of Martin Luther King, has no explanation for why God would restrict marriage between believers. Trust me, I’ve asked them.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses all married close kin. When Abraham commanded his chief slave, “I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living, but will go to my country and my own relatives and get a wife for my son Isaac,” he did not mention a word about theological belief or godly fidelity. His relatives were pagans! Still, he exclusively limited the search to kith and kin.
“Historically,” writes Pastor Matt Trewhella, “all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state... Black’s Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines ‘marriage license’ as, ‘A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.’ ‘Intermarry’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, ‘Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages’... Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act… By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.” Just allow that to sink in. Marriage was a function of the church until the state got involved, and the state only got involved to fulfill the illegal 14th Amendment, which was a result of Lincoln’s subjugation of the South. Now, here is where the dominoes begin to fall.
According to the New York Times, “In 1948, when the California Supreme Court threw out the state’s law against interracial marriage, 31 of the 48 states had similar laws. According to a 1958 Gallup poll, only 4% of whites approved of marriage between blacks and whites. Then, in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state anti-miscegenation statutes, declaring that race-mixing is a constitutional right. That case, Loving vs. Virginia, was brought by Mildred and Richard Loving, a married couple convicted of miscegenation in 1959 before a trial judge who declared, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” The Lovings were given a choice of spending a year in jail or leaving the state for 25 years. They left, but they sued, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court ruling of 1967. In 1968, a Gallup poll found that Americans, by more than 3 to 1, still disapproved of marriages between whites and blacks. The 2003 Gallup poll shows that 70% of whites now approve. Additionally, 66% of white respondents said they would have no objection if a child or grandchild chose a black spouse.
William Eskridge, a Yale law professor, says “views on same-sex marriage will follow the same path as those on interracial marriage.” Sadly, he is correct. Christians with such flexible principles will not bother to mount a sustained defense of marriage at this late hour.
Many Christians would like to connect sodomite marriage to that other great act of judicial tyranny, Roe vs. Wade. They forget about the Loving vs. Virginia decision which outlawed the ban against miscegenation, and they forget about it precisely because they think it was just. My friend Greg McDivitt pointed out to me that the Massachusetts court cited Loving 25 times in their decision legalizing sodomite marriage but mentioned Roe in passing only four times. The very heart of the decision was based on the illegal Fourteenth Amendment, which was cited 13 times. So if you’re looking for a logical progression, it is to be found in the religion of Equality: citizenship was granted to former slaves, therefore interracial marriages may not be forbidden, therefore sodomite marriages may not be forbidden.
I said that two-thirds of white respondents to polls say they would not object if a child or grandchild chose a black spouse. But this is not what they desire, of course. Parents invariably and instinctively want their children to find spouses who are similar. I’m unaware of a single exception. Let us resolve to obey the fifth commandment, and let us hear no more from pastors who encourage children to disobey their parents. Let us heed the warning of G.K. Chesterton: “Don’t ever take a fence down, until you know the reason it was put up.”
“Since liberalism became a kind of official party line,” recognized Richard Weaver, “we have been enjoined against saying things about races, religions, or national groups, for, after all, there is no categorical statement without its implication of value, and values begin divisions among men. We must not define, subsume, or judge; we must rather rest on the periphery and display ‘sensibility toward the cultural expression of all lands and peoples.’ This is a process of emasculation.” He said that to deny what he called “the continuum of race” is to dishonor our forefathers and reduce ourselves to the level of animals. Russell Kirk said the same thing: “To presume that a mystic ‘equality’ entitles the mass of mankind to tinker at pleasure with society, to play with it as a toy, to exercise their petty ingenuity upon it, is to reduce mankind to the only state of life in which anything resembling equality of condition actually prevails: savagery.” Weaver continues: “The ancient feeling of brotherhood carries obligations of which equality knows nothing. It calls for respect and protection, for brotherhood is status in family, and family is by nature hierarchical... It is eloquent of that loss of respect for logic to which we owe so many disasters that the French Revolution made equality and fraternity co-ordinates... How much of the frustration of the modern world proceeds from starting with the assumption that all are equal, finding that this cannot be so, and then having to realize that one can no longer fall back on the bond of fraternity!... Nothing is more manifest than that as this social distance has diminished and all groups have moved nearer equality, suspicion and hostility have increased. In the present world there is little of trust and less of loyalty. People do not know what to expect of one another. Leaders will not lead, and servants will not serve... The basis of an organic social order is fraternity uniting parts that are distinct.” And this is kinism in a nutshell. It is not only for whites; it is for all people in the world, and it has as its ultimate goal the unified purpose of mankind, which is to glorify God.
Weaver is referring there to the one and the many, which is a concept we first discover in the Bible. There is one God but a plurality of persons. There is one body of Christ, but it has many members. So let us hear no more about “the mystery of the gospel” from those who seek to amalgamate through miscegenation. There is no mystery at all in “the one and the many” if the “many” no longer exists. If all members of the body of Christ suddenly turn into the liver, can we say that a body remains? Is abolishing races (which are said to not exist by these people) the proper way to promote racial harmony? Is it hatred for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to refuse to merge into one undifferentiated God? Unity in diversity is a mystery that we are only able to grasp through the Spirit of God, and we will be punished if we disregard His work of creation.
To again quote John Vinson: “The Christian can affirm that generalities such as ‘mankind’ are real, just as particulars such as nations and individuals are real. Eastern religion denies the real world by denying the reality of particulars. A number of modern philosophies say that particulars are real and generalities are not. Only Christianity strikes the proper balance, consistent with the world we see. If men lose sight of this balance, they will err to the side of ignoring nationality and endorsing world government, or to the side of deifying their nation and despising all others. God envisions the world as a great symphony. Different peoples play different parts, all contributing to one divine harmony.”
“Equality may exist only among slaves,” said Aristotle. “Equality is a slogan based on envy,” said Alexis de Tocqueville. “It signifies in the heart of every republican: ‘Nobody is going to occupy a place higher than I.’” As R. Carter Pittman said, “It is inequality that gives enlargement to religion, to intellect, to energy, to virtue, to love and to wealth. Equality of intellect stabilizes mediocrity. Equality of wealth makes all men poor. Equality of religion destroys all creeds. Equality of energy renders all men sluggards. Equality of virtue suspends all men without the gates of Heaven. Equality of love stultifies every manly passion, destroys every family altar and mongrelizes the races of men. Equality homogenizes so that cream does not rise to the top. It puts the eagle in the hen house so that he may no longer soar.”
Michael Andrew Grissom warns us: “Until the White man of the South learns to draw a line over which none dare step, he can expect only additional abuse... And this defeat of the West will have been accomplished, not by superior strength or civilization...not by the ‘forces of history,’ but simply by the feckless generosity and moral cowardice of the West itself.”
Kevin MacDonald affirms that whites are now “a declining, apologetic people, ashamed of their history and not sure even of their claim to lands they have occupied for centuries.” Americans have been lulled to sleep. As Srdja Trifkovic writes in Chronicles, they do not realize that the invaders of their country have purposed “to partake in their wealth, know their women, and eventually take over their lands - and they nurture a healthy contempt for a society willing to grant them every indulgence without a fight... Both the loss of the will to define and defend one’s native soil and the loss of the desire to procreate send an alluring signal to the teeming favellas and kazbahs: Come, for no Western nation has the guts to shed blood - alien or its own - in the name of its own survival.” But when our declining race learns to love itself once again, “Communities linked to their native soil and bonded by kinship, memory, language, faith, and myth would be revived, and hostile alien ghettos would be expelled. And, in adversity, the eyes of men would be lifted, once again, to Heaven.”
In Acts 17:26, Paul says that God sets boundaries among the nations “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him.” But today the curse of Hosea 7 has come true: “Ephraim has mixed himself among the peoples; Ephraim is a cake unturned. Aliens have devoured his strength, but he does not know it...” Deuteronomy 28 tells us what awaits us if we do not turn from this path: “The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.” Let us make the prayer of Lamentations chapter 5 our own:
Remember, O LORD, what has come upon us;
Look, and behold our reproach!
Our inheritance has been turned over to aliens,
And our houses to foreigners.
Our fathers sinned and are no more,
But we bear their iniquities.
Servants rule over us;
There is none to deliver us from their hand.
We have ignored the biblical Law of the Stranger. According to Rushdoony, “the term stranger has reference to someone residing within the country who is of another tribe, nation, or race. The reference is not to travellers passing through.” Now read Deut. 17:15: “you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” This is entirely a racial statement, and the implications for the integrated society are staggering.
As Rushdoony says, “Every social order institutes its own program of separation or segregation… The claim of equality and integration is thus a pretext to subvert an older or existing form of social order… But integration and equality are myths; they disguise a new segregation and a new equality... Segregation, separation, or quarantine, whichever name is used, is inescapable in any society.”
As Ernest van den Haag wrote in National Review in 1965: One “need not believe that one’s own ethnic group, or any ethnic group, is superior to others...in order to wish one’s country to continue to be made up of the same ethnic strains in the same proportions as before. And, conversely, the wish not to see one’s country overrun by groups one regards as alien need not be based on feelings of superiority or ‘racism’... the wish to preserve one’s identity and the identity of one’s nation requires no justification...any more than the wish to have one’s own children, and to continue one’s family through them need be justified or rationalized by a belief that they are superior to the children of others.”
As Jared Taylor says: “People have every right to expect their children and their children’s children to be able to grow up and walk in the ways of their ancestors. They have a powerful, natural desire that their grandchildren be like them—that they speak the same language, sing the same songs, tell the same stories, pray to the same God, take pride in the same past, hope the same hopes, love the same nation, and honor the same traditions. The crucial elements of peoplehood cannot be preserved in the face of a flood of aliens, especially when the central institutions of the nation itself preach fashionable falsehoods about the equivalence of all races, cultures, and peoples... Nothing could be more obvious: Diversity of race or tribe or language or religion is the main reason people kill each other on a large scale. Diversity—within the same territory—is strife, not strength.” Those who seek amalgamation are enemies of mankind, because violence will only increase as a result of their folly. This is precisely why Thomas Jefferson said: “[W]hen freed, the Negro is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture... Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”
In conclusion, Americans used to consider racial purity to be very important. In fact, the first naturalization law in American history confined citizenship to whites. But t he cosmopolitan state has redefined citizenship, changing it from an ethno-racial claim to a matter of political designation, from a real nation to a proposition nation. Today, the nation is defined by adherence to ideology rather than by descent. Today, the rights of citizenship are based not on blood but on the ability to pay taxes. Edward Gibbon wrote that Rome sank “into a vile and wretched populace, which must, in a few generations, have been totally extinguished, if it had not been constantly recruited by the manumission of slaves and the influx of strangers.” This is our trouble today, and like Rome, the empire of Americawill not survive. Nations are built on blood; empires are built on ideas. Therefore, it is not true that a Southerner is anyone who believes in Jeffersonian democracy or waves the Confederate flag.
“In our not-too-distant agrarian past,” writes Mark Godfrey, “the American innately understood that the possibility of existence was afforded by three things: tradition (which is inherited knowledge as common possession), community (which is a shared, regulated intercourse with one’s kinsmen), and an intimate, symbiotic relationship with the land. These are the common blessings of general providence, and they are available to all men. These are the pillars of kinism… In our haste to homogenize the world according to humanistic and materialistic (and ultimately classically pagan) standards of culture, we have forgotten the very integrity of culture, how it inheres in a people in the form of basic traits and tendencies...”
Folks, our nation is white and Christian. If it ceases to be either, it is no longer our nation. If our political parties fail to support our race and our religion, they are worthless.
I want to close today by reciting a poem by Rudyard Kipling called The Stranger:

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk—
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell.
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf—
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

Source: Little Geneva

Monday, February 20th, 2006, 05:46 AM
I got to an LCMS church that is mostly white. American blacks prefer Baptist, or so-called "Primitive Baptist". We have a few blacks in our church, but they are refugees from som African country, I don't remember which, but you can tell the difference because they stay in their own families, sit on one side in the back, don't talk to others, they smile a lot and are very quiet, and not overweight. They have the look of waiting patiently to return and are eager to start LCMS communities in Africa I think.

I am not surprised at the ELCA's statement. They are in ecumenical pulpit and communion fellowship with the unitarian church among other denominations that have female pastors, deny pedobaptism as well as the Lord's presence in the eucharist - similar to the cultural institution of state Lutheran churches of Scandinavia in some ways. I do not think that they are very "Lutheran" any more, for the most part, which is sad, since many scandinavian-americans are in this branch. But let it be noted that the upper ranks do not reflect the practice of the local churches, especially in rural areas where folks do not take to such liberalization so easily, no matter what synod their church is supported by. Also I have heard there are "Lutheran" churches for instance in Oklahoma that practice "taking up serpents" and "speaking in tongues" (sounds more like Pentecostal!).

Nevertheless I am happy in our LCMS church. I love to look at the roster-board and see about 85% of the surnames are German or Scandinavian in origin. I see a lot of UP & nordic faces there too, as well as friendly down-to-earth people with traditional values and morals.

Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 07:28 PM
Interesting opinions, the historic protestantism is better that current protestantism and the better protestantisms are mennonites, amish and lutheran. And of course, the most european people.
Although middle-ager catholicism, nothing!!