Daniel Ritchie of New Geneva argues that Kinism contradicts Chapter 24 of the Westminster Confession. This is a pleasant surprise. I could count on one hand the number of men who have even attempted flailing rebuttals of Kinism, so Ritchie should be recognized for his contribution to the debate.
In response, there are a few things we need to make clear straight away, and these should come as no surprise.
1) We have always sought to justify the opinions of our Christian forefathers, who almost without exception agreed with us on miscegenation and social relations, using Scripture alone.
2) We agree, with very minor reservations, that the Westminster Confession of Faith is the finest encapsulation of Christian doctrine ever produced, and as a confession, it roots every word in Scripture.
3) Here comes the “but.” But we absolutely reject the idea that the WCF or any other confession is designed to extract from the Bible everything that needs to be said about every matter of importance.
With these in mind, here is the passage that allegedly contradicts what was believed to be true by every Christian who ever lived prior to 1950:
III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.
There is no dispute over part 4, where “the degrees of consanguinity” refer to incest. The dispute is over Ritchie’s interpretation of part 3, especially when read in the context of part 4. Notice the general words “or affinity forbidden by the Word.” Is it really acceptable for all Christians to intermarry, as long as the relationships are not prohibited by Leviticus 18? Clearly not. There are many good reasons for forbidding marriages between old men and young girls, between those of radically different stature or temperament or class, or others who are dissimilar.
What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Typically, the question is answered in the way that Ritchie has answered it, by citing the words “only in the Lord” from 1 Cor. 7:39. But this doesn’t really answer the question since “only in the Lord” means “only according to the will of the Lord,” not “only for those who believe in the Lord.” The larger question is, What is the will of God for Christian marriage? What sort of affinity is forbidden by the Word? In our opinion, R.J. Rushdoony answered this definitively in his comments on 2 Cor. 6:14:
Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman is the reflected image of God in man, and from man (1 Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). “Helpmeet” means a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman 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. Unequal yoking means more than marriage. In society at large it means the enforced integration of various elements which are not congenial. Unequal yoking is in no realm productive of harmony; rather, it aggravates the differences and delays the growth of the different elements toward a Christian harmony and association.
Therefore, the wrong way to approach the subject of unequal yoking is to go to the WCF to see if there is any “condemnation of marriage between people of different skin colours” or other “super-added qualifications.” Since confessions take shape via controversy, why would anyone assume that an act that was universally unpracticed in the 17th century would be formally denounced by clerics of the time? Why would anyone attempt to project a modern pathology on the deliberations of the Westminster Divines? This is quite irresponsible.
Ritchie asserts: “The marriage of foreign wives was condemned, not on the basis of skin-colour, but on the basis of religious affiliation.” This desperately needs to be proved by him, as the question of whether qualifications for the covenant of marriage besides “religious affiliation” are not merely “prudent” but binding, makes or breaks the entire case. No evidence is presented, no proof is attempted. Without biblical or historical justification, Ritchie asserts that any two Christians who wish to marry each other may do so, and they have “no right to prohibit other people from so doing or to accuse them of being in sin.” This is libertarianism, not Christian doctrine.
The correct way to approach this subject is to first consult the Fifth Commandment and recognize that we are obligated to willfully obey the lawful commands and counsels of our parents. While Ritchie four times in two paragraphs attempts to divert attention by using the superficial term “skin color,” the Fifth Commandment goes to the core of our duty in marriage.
In his commentary on Gen. 24, John Calvin writes that it “should be taken by us as a common rule” that “it is not lawful for the children of a family to contract marriage, except with the consent of parents. Certainly natural equity dictates that, in a matter of such importance, children should depend upon the will of their parents.” Martin Bucer correctly called even a consensual marriage “rape” if the father did not bless it. In his commentary on 1 Cor. 7, Calvin tells us that “the authority of parents” has its origin—where?—in Westminster Confession proof-texts?—no, “in the common rights of nature.”
Now if in other actions of inferior moment no liberty is allowed to children, without the authority of their parents, much less is it reasonable that they should have liberty given them in the contracting of marriage. And that has been carefully enacted by civil law, but more especially by the law of God… Let us know, therefore, that in disposing of children in marriage, the authority of parents is of first-rate importance, provided they do not tyrannically abuse it, as even the civil laws restrict it. The Apostle, too, in requiring exemption from necessity, intimated that the deliberations of parents ought to be regulated with a view to the advantage of their children. Let us bear in mind, therefore, that this limitation is the proper rule—that children allow themselves to be governed by their parents, and that they, on the other hand, do not drag their children by force to what is against their inclination, and that they have no other object in view, in the exercise of their authority, than the advantage of their children.
Martin Luther agreed that “a child should not marry or become engaged without the knowledge and consent of his parents.” However, while “it is one thing to hinder a child’s marriage to this or that particular person,” it is “quite another thing to forbid marriage entirely.”
A father may lay down the rule that his child must not eat or drink this or that, or sleep here or there; but he cannot rule that the child abstain entirely from food, drink, and sleep. On the contrary, he is duty bound to provide his child with food, drink, clothing, sleep, and whatever else is needful for his well-being. If he fails to do this, he is no father at all, and the child will have to do it himself. In like manner, the father also has the authority to prevent his child from marrying this one or that one; but he does not have the authority to forbid him to marry altogether. On the contrary, he is duty bound to get his child a good mate who will be just right for him, or who seems to be just right for him.
In other words, don’t pretend that you’re obeying the Fifth Commandment if you fail to honor your parents in the most important choice of your life. To reject their wisdom for the kind of person you should marry, who will carry your name and heritage to succeeding generations, is to sin. And here’s the key point: There has never, in all the ages of this earth, been a white man who wants his son or daughter to marry into the black race, or any other race for that matter, except the white race. To ignore this salient and incontrovertible fact, as Ritchie does, is to play fast and loose with the truth. There can be no lesson about marriage drawn from Scripture (least of all the WCF) that does not first draw from the well of the Fifth Commandment.
And now you know why we seldom see anyone rise to the challenge of placing substance behind their constant accusations about the “heresy” of Kinism. It’s because, on the subject of race, our side agrees with most of the Christians who have ever lived while the other side agrees with every sort of contemporaneous Christ-hater imaginable.
From the same school, New Geneva, comes this equally misguided and deceptive post on the immigration philosophy of Teddy Roosevelt. Read this quote, and when you’re finished we’d like to ask you a question.
In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. And we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people.
Would it be safe to assume that an institution of higher learning that posts such a quote is careful not to misrepresent Roosevelt’s intended meaning?
Here is a quote from Roosevelt that shows exactly what he had in mind:
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism… The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
As it turned out, the nations of Europe, being of common racial heritage with the British founding stock, assimilated quite easily. Leaving aside the question of whether this was good or bad, no honest historian would suggest that Roosevelt believed the American tribe could assimilate other races. Roosevelt loudly blamed the South for saddling the country with blacks, who he called “a perfectly stupid race.” He considered their presence here to be a millstone around our necks. “There is no solution to the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent,” he wrote in 1901; “he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away.” Roosevelt blamed lynchings on the disposition of black men to rape white women.
He called the white race “the forward race” in 1905, and to this race alone fell the task of “preserving the high civilization wrought out by its forefathers.” He believed that miscegenation and racial integration would cause us to degenerate, and history has made him a prophet. In his book, The Winning of the West, he wrote: “It is of incalculable importance that America, Australia, and Siberia should pass out of the hands of their red, black, and Aboriginal owners, and become the heritage of the dominant world races.” Again, the propriety of imperialism is open to question, but you can see that unlike Judeochristian race-mixers, we are presenting the real man, not a myth. When he was president, he said, “As a race, and in the mass, [blacks] are altogether inferior to the whites… All reflecting men of both races are united in feeling that race purity must be maintained.”
It’s not possible to honestly assess Roosevelt’s “immigration policy” without taking race into account. Those who pretend that Roosevelt did not carefully consider race himself only succeed in twisting his words to mean the exact opposite of what he intended. Just as they do with holy Scripture.
‘There has never, in all the ages of this earth, been a white man who wants his son or daughter to marry into the black race, nor any other race for that matter, except the white race.’ Honestly, what on earth are you talking about? How do you know?
After reading a few of your posts, I wonder how you would get along with St. Paul. The man who articulated the gospel as a breaking down of racial barriers. It is shocking to me to read such shameless denials of texts like Galatians 3, and Ephesians 2:11-22. And yet, you accuse others of playing fast and loose with Holy Scripture. Your hermeneutic would fail WCF 1.9 miserably.
If you really have a developed, biblical anthropology here then write a few posts about how it squares with the texts I mention above. Prove that nothing horizontal comes from the doctrine of justification.
I keep getting older, but one thing stays the same, and that is the inability of Judeochristians to understand what unity in Christ really means. Galatians 3:28 does not mean that the gospel is a “breaking down of racial barriers,” if by this you mean that all races are to be blended into one. Nor does it imply that all sexual “barriers” are erased. It means, very simply, that all may freely drink from the River of Life. It does not mean that God’s designed differences among the sexes and races have been overturned, or that His judgment at Babel has been reversed.
You have not denied that this is what all of our Christian forefathers believed, and it is what we believe. The reason you haven’t denied it is because you can’t.
Why don’t you explain to us how we have presented a “shameless denial” of Galatians 3 or Ephesians 2? Do you really mean to suggest that since both Hebrews and Gentiles have been made “fellow citizens” of the body of Christ (Eph. 2:19), there is no longer a need for nations or the borders that set them apart? Do you mean to suggest that one kin group does not have the right to set itself apart from another kin group? If so, how do you explain the partitions of the tribes of Israel? And what communion do you have with 99% of all the Christians who have ever lived if you disagree with them so radically?
I love how we wrote that no white man has ever wanted his child to marry into another race, and you ask, “Honestly, what on earth are you talking about? How do you know?” We had a good laugh over it. You might as well have asked how we know that the sky is blue. If you deny it, try to prove us wrong.
You also wondered how we would “get along with St. Paul.” You mean the one whose love for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” was so great that he would have sacrificed himself so that they might live (Rom. 9:3)? Pretty well, I’d say.
Acts 2 is the reversal of the judgment of Babel for those in Christ. Gal. 3:28 is just a reiteration of it. Let’s just talk about Ephesians 2 though. If Christ’s death creates ‘one new man in place of the two, so making peace and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross thereby killing the hostility… So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…” how can you, as a member of Christ, want to ‘set yourself apart from another kin group’? I’m not sure all having the right to ‘freely drink from the river of life’ means much if you say that. Only in abstraction I suppose. You have said what these texts don’t mean (in your opinion), but you have not said what they do mean. To ‘freely drink of the River of Life’ is not a valid answer, because I can’t see how you could believe that in practice.
Would you remove yourself from table fellowship with black brothers and sisters?
Would you joyfully take communion next to one?
I’m sure you wouldn’t if you don’t approve of the two races joining in something like matrimony. Tell me then how you stand innocent of Paul’s rebuke in Gal. 3:1? Who has bewitched you?
I suppose the world needs nations, I guess I can’t imagine a world without them. The Church will always have them as well (Rev. 5:9). My point is not that there are not distinguishing marks between people groups, but that those marks are in no way meant to interfere with egalitarian community in the Church. From the table to the marriage bed, baby.
No clue what you’re talking about with the forefathers. If you find certain judgments about other peoples in Church history it most often has to do with a widespread denial of Christ, and not a wholesale judgment of someone’s ethnicity. This is one of this website’s typical overstatements. Temper yourselves, be more precise. What is more, I think you use this as a scapegoat, alleviating yourself from reforming where the Bible challenges the status quo.
I am a white Southern man (Columbia, SC). My family has lived here for three centuries, and my son would be free to marry a godly, Christian black woman. Their family would be eagerly welcome into mine, and I would love to be welcome into theirs… a foretaste of glory divine (Rev. 7:9). If that doesn’t prove you wrong, I don’t know what will. Maybe you are trying to make some point about the subjectivity of blueness, if that’s the case you’re going over my head.
With regard to Romans 9… I think I’m the one that can relate to St. Paul here. Again what was the hangup many Jews had with the gospel? It was a problem with the Messiahship of Jesus, and how that disabled their ethnic elitism. So, I say to you admin, “that i have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart” that you will not accept the ramifications of the cross of Christ.
John,
Acts 2 is not the reversal of Babel, but simply a powerful display of God that the gospel is now going out to gentile nations as had been promised. Scripture is clear that nations will still exist in heaven. So your question whether we would remove ourselves from table fellowship with black brothers and sisters is without force. If God has created and bound the habitations of nations so that they may call out to Him, we may innocently assume that he desires the pure worship of all his people, without confusion.
Your comment is most disturbing: “The Church will always have them as well (Rev. 5:9). My point is not that there are not distinguishing marks between people groups, but that those marks are in no way meant to interfere with egalitarian community in the Church. From the table to the marriage bed, baby.”
I think what you’re looking for in Rev 7:9 is “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from ONE nation, and one brown color, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb.” However the passage says nations (plural) will be present, not mulattos. By the way, the offspring of a white and black would not be another race, but a mongrel without racial make-up. It would take a significant number of generations of that mulatto’s breeding with other like mulattos for a genotype to develop into a significant racial cluster in genetic distance space that could be recognized as a race.
You’re missing the point of Romans 9. There Paul exemplifies what we read elsewhere from his pen, that a man is immediately behooved to provide for his family, and by extension, his race (1 Tim 5:8). It takes some jumping over a lot of concentric circles to say that he is equally charged to provide for the Negro down the street as he his is own daughter, for starving Africans as starving Appalachian kids.
Question: Does Gal 3:27 overturn/level the social positions of the sexes too, or just races?
I’m afraid I didn’t say it clearly enough. I do not want to be one of these commentators (I guess that’s the right word) you wave away with the charge of ‘ad hominem’ argument. Exegete the NT passages dealing with race (Rom. 9; Eph. 2:11-22; Gal. 3 etc.), and square those passages with your anthropology. Try to avoid obscure citations by obscure men (I’m sure you’ll have something whiny to say about that line), and exegete it yourself. Make those texts applicable for the 21st century South.
Or, come to Columbia and I’ll buy you a beer.
John, neither Acts 2 nor Galatians 3 reversed God’s order at Babel. You assert this without defending this and simply expect us to believe it. Acts 2 actually sanctions separate nationhood for the church in the New Testament. If this was a reversal of Babel, wouldn’t everyone have started speaking the same language? As far as Ephesians 2 is concerned I’ve always understood the middle wall of partition to mean the actual wall that existed in the old temple. Obviously the ceremonial distinction in Hebrew temple worship no longer applies.
Your interpretation is that the gospel is all about breaking down racial barriers. I believe that this grossly perverts the meaning of the passages that you refer to. As was pointed out, if Gal. 3:28 is all about breaking down racial barriers wouldn’t it also naturally mean that we ought to break down gender barriers? These passages simply teach that Christ can transcend even the most enduring and biblical of distinctions such as social rank, gender, and race. You yourself acknowledge that the “world needs nations” and that “the Church will always have them.” So exactly were are kinists wrong for our insistence of national distinctions. Your interpretation of Rev. 7:9 as refering to miscegenation has nothing to do with the text. Indeed this proves the kinist point that there will be enduring national distinctions in eternity.
You said that you have “No clue what you’re talking about with the forefathers.” Are you honestly unaware of the historic opinions of your fathers in South Carolina on the issue of interracial marriage? I simply cannot bring myself to believe that anyone can be so ignorant. What admin was referring to is simply the collective judgement of our white Christian forebears from centuries past. It seems stretching history beyond credulity to suggest that it wans’t until Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that people started reading their Bible on the issue of intermarriage.
Your comments on Romans 9:3 don’t have anything to do with the text itself. It has been my experience that many modern evangelicals simply take words or phrases from certain verses of the Bible and interpret them completely out of their historic context. This is true of many issues including verses dealing with race. The point that we are making with Romans 9:3 is simply that St. Paul considered that he had a very meaningful connection to his Hebrew kinsman according to the flesh, even those who were not Christians. This John, is what the text actually says.
JP: If you want to deny reality by quoting Paul and Galatians 3:28, you’ve got to take it the whole way. The scripture continues. . .”neither male nor female.”
So, if you want to continue denying reality by making Paul into the Patron Saint of Evangelical Myopia, Cowardice, and Retardation, you’ve got to include shemale orgies, etc, in your inter-racial fantasyland.
SF,
If I ignore my defense of Acts 2 reversing the curse of Babel, then you ignore how it validates it. I have yet to see on this site sustained biblical reflection, merely silly proof-texting. Again, I do not know what you’re talking about in the first paragraph. Make a case for heaven’s sake, don’t just throw things out there. What are you talking about with the actual wall? Of course Paul is not being literal. You can’t be serious, and I don’t know how to respond. Please give me something to actually respond to.
Your 2nd paragraph is worse. I honestly don’t even know how to respond. You haven’t said anything that directly rejects what I’ve posited. The kinists can insist all they want on national distinctives. They cannot insist that they will hold hands with other nations in eternity. Again, what is your point? If Christ can break down these barriers, why do you keep bringing them up?
If anyone has reason to boast in their Southerness I have more. Colonizing South Carolina early, fighting in the war between the States, having our farm burned to the ground by Sherman, and losing the rest of it in the Great Depression (Ft. Motte/St Matthews SC). Please come to Columbia and give credence to your weak pedigree.
You talk about ‘modern evangelicals’ without knowing me. Again, come to 1532 Marchant Columbia, SC and meet me before you speak of ‘modern evangelicals’. I have a meaningful connection to you brother, and you fail to recognize and value it. My concern, is that you do not understand the Scriptures, and the way they speak of race. I must say it again, exegete Eph. 2:11-22 if you can. What is the ‘historical context’ brother? You know it so well, enlighten me.
Also we should keep in mind the context of what the WCF says about marriage. The historical context was one in which Roman Catholic cannon law forbid marriage between persons who were related by as much as third cousin. People began to take advantage of this by marrying someone they knew was within the forbidden degree of affinity, then simply confess and have their marriage annulled. Another practice would be to marry without parents knowledge or consent and then have this marriage annulled. Both of these practices were essentially slick ways to fornicate without the consequences of fornication. Instead of simply declaring that those who married without parental permission the Roman Catholic Church stated that these marriages were real marriages and could not be annulled. The WCF is addressing the question of how closely people could be related and still marry without committing incest. The conclusion reached by Presbyterians and other protestants was that incest must be defined by biblical law not Roman Catholic canon law. One of the downsides about prohibitions of marrying 2nd or 3rd cousins is that it subverted patriarchy. This is the question that the WCF and other protestant confessional documents are addressing, not the question of miscegenation which was not being practiced at the time.
I apologize to confed for having not seen his response before my previous response.
Honestly brother your post does not make any sense (all due respect). I wish I knew how to respond to it, but sadly I don’t.
In terms of 1 Tim. 5:8, it doesn’t take any jumping for me to believe that the Church has a responsibility to the Church. All those who are freely allowed to drink from the River of Life…. Remember?
A couple quick points:
1) I think John Paulling here demonstrates a reasonable spirit. I understand where he’s coming from since I basically held those same views when I was younger.
Also, even though I agree with the principles of kinism, sometime the rhetoric on here is rather counter-productive. For example:
“With these in mind, here is the passage that allegedly contradicts what was believed to be true by every Christian who ever lived prior to 1950:”
Though generally true, there is something genuinely annoying about inserting points like this into a sentence that is supposed to be framing the debate.
2) The phrase “It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry,” has none of meaning associated with it by Ritchie. The Westminster divines are simply stating, as against the Romish doctrine of clerical celibacy, that there is no class of people for whom marriage is unlawful in and of itself. The OP seems to have missed this.
3) Scarborough Fayre makes the point, but I’d like to re-state it: the hermeneutic of racial blending breaks down when one attempts to apply it consistently. Paul does indeed say that there is “neither Jew nor Greek”, and that is absolutely true in the question of salvation and Christian fraternity. However, in the same breath he tells us that there is neither “male nor female, slave nor free.” Paul in other places is very adamant on the difference in male/female role relations, and also insists that slaves obey and give due honor to their masters. This proves that the hermeneutic of equality was not intended in any way to destroy the normal social order, but rather to redeem it.
To further re-enforce this, I’d like to point out that Paul also calls us the members of one family, and yet no one denies the boundaries that exist between individual families. Likewise, though we are one nation and “a kingdom of priests,” this fact in no way destroys the real distinctions of race.
To sum up, I think the hermeneutic you’re looking for, John, is succinctly put by Jesus in His response to Pilate:
“My kingdom is not of this world.”
The only people at Pentecost in Acts 2 were Jews. Why do people think a multiplicity of peoples were there?
John, your comment at 3:28 pm is revealing on many levels.
It’s distressing that you seem to belong to the John Lofton school of artful evasion, but we’re getting used to asking questions that go ignored. I would be uncomfortable answering them too, if I were you. In good faith, I will answer your questions and respond to your points, minus a couple that I don’t understand.
Which of our church fathers ever promoted the idea that Pentecost reversed Babel? If Pentecost reversed Babel, it means that separation into “families, languages, lands, and nations,” as it says in Genesis 10, is no longer desirable. It means that national borders should be erased because nations are no longer necessary.
Here is Matthew Henry’s explanation for God’s purpose prior to Babel: “God’s purpose was, that mankind should form many nations, and people all lands. In contempt of the Divine will, and against the counsel of Noah, the bulk of mankind united to build a city and a tower to prevent their separating.”
How has God’s purpose changed? The lesson traditionally drawn from Pentecost is that the new covenant is open to Gentiles, even though the men who actually assembled on that day were Israelites, as Torque says. Were they told that faith had rendered their kinship and nationality obsolete?
Francis Nigel Lee disagrees with you entirely: “Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow… In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor — the cultural treasures — of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.”
It is self-evident that covenantal “strangers and aliens” have been made “fellow citizens” in faith, but this spiritual unity does not necessarily translate to physical unity on every level. Again, this is what all of our Christian forefathers believed, and it somehow surprises you. You ask, “How can you, as a member of Christ, want to ‘set yourself apart from another kin group’?” Here you prove that you consider nationalism, and the desire for scaled self-government among kin-groups, and the existence of nations themselves to be un-Christian! I could just as easily ask you why you want to set your family apart from mine. Why don’t I have a key to your house?
Then you have the audacity to say that unless I agree with your radical, unbiblical, Marxist way of thinking, the gospel can’t really “mean much” to me. You even say that you don’t see how I can really believe the gospel unless I stop agreeing with our forefathers and start agreeing with you. This is astonishing!
“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. [In this manner,] God, by his providence, reduces to order that which is confused.” ~ John Calvin
“It may be said that, in general, nationalism is best for the world in its present state of sin and that to destroy those national boundaries is contrary to God’s present will.” ~ Harold Stigers
“It appears to be the will of God to use nationalism to restrain human revolt against God.” ~ Joe Morecraft
“Nationalism is God’s order for the human race.” ~ John Eidsmoe
Just as God has ordained that children be raised in distinct and separate families rather than communes, He has divided races and nations so that men will have the peace and security to grope for Him and find Him. As a good friend of mine often says, love and compassion fare poorly in chaos.
Some of what you’ve written would be quite funny if it were not so sad. “I suppose the world needs nations.” This is like saying, “I suppose the world needs families,” or “I suppose the world needs oxygen.” I would love to know why you “suppose” nations are necessary when you treat the formation of nations, ethnicities, races, and even languages as though they are unfortunate remnants of the benighted past.
When we said that no white man has ever wanted his child to marry into another race, and asked you to try to prove us wrong, you responded by saying that you would allow it in your own family. But this doesn’t prove anything. All this means is that you’re not stating a preference. If you were to choose, entirely of your own accord, you know as well as everyone reading this that the racial category would be white. There are several ways you could prove us wrong, but you haven’t done it yet. It goes without saying that there are countless white men who have put on a happy face and lived with a decision of this magnitude after putting it entirely in the hands of their children. But let’s not pretend that such men are fulfilling their duty as fathers.
“Would you remove yourself from table fellowship with black brothers and sisters?”
No.
“Would you joyfully take communion next to one?”
Yes.
“I’m sure you wouldn’t…joyfully take communion [with another race]…if you don’t approve of the two races joining in something like matrimony… From the table to the marriage bed, baby.”
Where do you get the idea that Christians cannot share in worldwide communion with Christ unless they all intermarry? What Christian prior to 1950 agreed with what you are saying? Since you call Kinism a “heresy,” was all of Christendom in apostasy until St. MLK was born? Like me, did they all fail to “accept the ramifications of the cross of Christ”?
I am thankful to SWB for responding to Mr. Ritchie’s article. This sort of thing needs to happen often.
I don’t have much to add, but I do think a certain “epistemological” rabbit trail could use fleshing out, and will do so after a few initial comments:
I caution Mr. Pauling against posting his address among so many passionate eccentrics (what else could we be who post here?) Positions like ours can only be held by the brave, and I for one would be readily willing to confront him in his place of power and comfort with these doctrines that disturb so mightily.
It’s always discouraging to me to read someone so thoroughly reconstructed. It reminds me of the arguments of many humanists (like Dewey) in favor of a plastic nature in man; one that can be molded and conformed to desired ends. As Christians we cannot allow for this and must maintain that Mr. Pauling is the result of the systematic (and very well-financed) searing of a conscience!
But, that is an irrelevant ad-hominem observation. What concerns me presently is the idea of the necessity of a hearth, home, and kin.
These things are necessary, as Chesterton says:
I mean that God bade me love one spot and serve it, and do all things however wild in praise of it, so that this one spot might be a witness against all the infinities and the sophistries, that Paradise is somewhere and not anywhere, is something and not anything.
We know Christ ultimately through our knowledge of hearth and home and people. To abstract ourselves from this relationship is to lose ourselves in a postmodern sea of irrelevance and idolatry.
All our life is meant to “glorify God”…but that term is devoid of meaning unless you have something concrete with which to work. We are to build up order! We are to honor God-ordained distinctions. This makes sins out of everything from interracial marriages to lounging on the couch eating pizzas!
You! Mr. Pauling! Are arguing for the abstraction of faith and the ultimate death of meaning itself.
And that is not something brothers wish on their kin…
“In terms of 1 Tim. 5:8, it doesn’t take any jumping for me to believe that the Church has a responsibility to the Church. All those who are freely allowed to drink from the River of Life…. Remember?”
1 Tim 5:8 does NOT teach that the church has the responsibility to the church–at all. It says that YOU have an obligation to help your kin (whether in the church or out of the church). Scarborough already pointed out that in Romans 9, Paul showed an immediate obligation to his kin, and they weren’t even part of the church!
Do deny this and say that the Asian or Negro man is just a closely my kin as a the white man is to jump over many links in the chain of loyalty: you > your immediate family > your extended family > you’re ethnic group that migrated here > your race > all races > humanity.
Sorry for the confusion about genetic races. You say that the Church will always have distinguishing national marks, but then you say that the marriage bed can erase those! You play loose with Rev 7:9 which teaches that nations still exist, but as your interracial marriage bed principle would have it teach that only one mulatto nation will be present in heaven.
St. Matthews, SC is a rural, boarded-up, “African-American” hellhole, the kind of place that by this point all the Whites of any means have escaped from, save for the few who still have a family business/farm that’s still profitable.
Pauling knows this, but depends upon your ignorance to twist this fact into support for his fantasy world.
Also, his given address in Columbia is almost immediately adjacent to “Columbia International University,” a bastion of “evangelical” race whackiness.
Heading south on Monticello Road back into Columbia, one crosses I-20 and enters the former city of Eau Claire (now a part of the city), a former working class White community that now is another Black shithole, like most of Columbia proper, as Pauling knows.
But let’s not be too hard on him. It seems to me he’s the type that has a frightening suspicion that 2+2 does not in fact equal 3 or 5, and yearns to prove to himself that it does not in fact equal 4. I don’t think he would be here otherwise.
The mental gymnastics one such as he has gone through his entire life to deny race reality in order to “go along to get along” amount to a kind of psychosis. And it’s doubly hard to accept reality when the cost is considered to be societal censure from one’s similarly afflicted fellows.
Odd his assertion of some pedigree. Mine is similar, but somewhat more impressive, as would be revealed were a pissing match commenced. Pauling’s acceptance of the recent, batshit crazy propaganda regarding race places him in the position of pissing on the very background he rightfully takes pride in.
But when one betrays his own people–no matter how popular a pasttime–the betrayal projects not just into the future but into the past as well, and attacks every other aspect of life like a cancer. Hyman leverages that fact to create a feedback loop of self-hate among the ignorant and stupid, who proudly poke their chests out while throwing their own ancestors to the dogs, and thus themselves.
Shotgun, that is an awe-inspiring quote from Chesterton! It grabbed me by the heart and twisted a little.
Confed, you’re exactly right. Paulling argues that Babel has been reversed for Christians, and nations are no longer necessary for Christians, and the Fifth Commandment is only applicable for Christian parents and grandparents, and 1 Tim. 5:8 refers only to one’s duty to the Church.
This is evidence of the gnosticism and neo-platonism that has infected the Church. These are the true heresies, not Kinism. They teach that we should aspire to be ghosts and leave the tarnished, temporal world behind – the same world that, while admittedly fallen, was created by God to suit us perfectly. Many expect to be raptured from it.
They are not teaching Christian theology. I keep asking Paulling if our forefathers agreed with what he is teaching, and he understandably dodges the question, because he knows they didn’t. If I were teaching something that no one believed until a few generations ago, I hope that I would be riddled with guilt for being schismatic.
Truer words were never spoken, CL, that “it’s doubly hard to accept reality when the cost is considered to be societal censure from one’s similarly afflicted fellows.”
There is a huge price to pay for it. To be banished to the fringes of society is not only a personal cost. It’s a cost to all your friends and relatives as well. It becomes easy to see who your true friends really are. The truth will set you free, but it’s a heavy burden to bear.
The question in my mind is, What’s the alternative?
Indeed, an excellent and stirring quote by Chesterton. Thanks, Shotgun.
Also, sad but true is CL’s line.
The alternative is capitulation with evil and to be found on the wrong side of God’s judgment when He sends the last bowls on our land. We must remember that His judgments in the earth are two-fold, also serving to vindicate His remnant. Let’s hold fast with the straight and narrow.
Hey CL, “St. Matthews, SC is a rural, boarded-up, “African-American” hellhole, the kind of place that by this point all the Whites of any means have escaped from, save for the few who still have a family business/farm that’s still profitable.”
Is that not the entire south? How does Wytheville,VA fair better than that?
An extended quote from someone much greater than I…
“It is, indeed, amazing to contemplate so vast a vacuity… Nearly the whole of Europe could be lost in that stupendous region of fat farms, shoddy cities and paralyzed cerebrums… And yet, for all its size and wealth and all the ‘progress’ it babbles of, it is as almost as sterile, artistically, intellectually, culturally, as the Sahara Desert. There are single acres in Europe that house more first rate men than all the states south of the Potomac; there are probably single square miles in America. If the whole of the late confederacy were to be engulfed by a tidal wave tomorrow, the effect upon the civilized minority of men in the world would be be but a little greater than that of a flood on the Yang-tse-kiang. It would be impossible in history to match so complete a drying up of civilization.”
If the curse of Babel had been reversed at Pentecost, all believers would miraculously speak the same language, or would be able to understand each other as though they do. They do not. Therefore, we can safely assume that the curse of Babel has not been reversed (unless you believe that the gift of tongues endures to this day and is normative for all believers.) It’s that simple.
I am still waiting for evangelicals to suddenly realize that the gospel “breaks the gender barrier” as well as the race barrier, and we should encourage fornication and sodomy. Oh, wait, many of them already do.
A few brief comments, and more about Acts 2 when I have some more time (hopefully, later tonight).
I am ashamed that I said what I said about pedigree. I don’t know what got into me, seriously.
CL is correct on all fronts as to where I live (google maps is a wonderful thing, is it not?). Although, St. Matthews and Eau Claire are both beautiful places to me. Maybe that’s the psychosis talking. I did do my undergrad at CIU, but I work construction now. I don’t want to have the pissing contest CL, but not because I’m intimidated by the length of your stream. I think that we judge the nobility of pedigree differently. I’m impressed that my family loves these places so much, I’m proud of that. You see, hearth and home are important to us too. The St. Matthewans that are worth their salt stayed, and we love them.
Shotgun, I’m not worried about posting my address. I think y’all are all pretty tame. Bravery does not abide anonymity. So, until you replace the pseudonyms with real names I will sit comfortably (cf. Jn. 3:20-21). Again, I posted my name and address because I don’t think ‘broad evangelical’ is the most accurate way to classify me. I thought maybe we could get to know one another before the mud-slinging began (I’m happy for you to name-call and sling mud if you can do so with precision). But, as CL said don’t expect to be impressed with my neighborhood if you do come here. We do things a little different.
Admin, I’m not meaning to avoid your question about the forefathers. Frankly, I just haven’t checked my church history concordance for the word ‘kinism’ before. I’m looking into and thinking about it though. As to church fathers, Babel, and Pentecost I believe the Venerable Bede is the earliest person to draw the connection (I wasn’t able to get to the library today to check, you can check his commentary on Acts for yourself).
That being said, I want to retract much of the rest of what I said above. I am new to this conversation, for that reason I hope you forgive my waffling.
Retractions:
I do not believe Gal. 3:28 or Eph. 2:11-22 break down ethnic differences.
I do not believe Acts 2 is a reversal of Babel (SF was right, I was just saying that, repeating something I had heard). Accept my apology, please.
Good points were made by SF, and admin on both accounts. I have to say they are the only two who are articulate on this site. Due apologies for any offense. All of you have thought about this longer than I have, and should exemplify the same level of thought as those two.
Let’s talk about Acts 2. My new position is that Babel does not need to be reversed. The disciplinary action of ‘scattering’ on the part of God, in my opinion, was his intention from the beginning (cf. Gen. 9:1). God deliberately counters the idolatrous single speech building project at Babel (Gen. 11:4). Babel’s relationship to ‘one language’ is an example of the hubris that causes men to subjugate and assimilate conquered people by a ‘dominate nation’. It is manifest throughout history that imposing one language on people is an excellent way of pacifying them. Both Augustine and Chrysystom saw this as the wickedness in Babel (Civ. 16.4;Hom. Gen. 30.5). Josephus reminds us that the Maccabees ‘spoke in the language of their ancestors’ as an act of revolution against those who tried for political dominion. How does this relate to Acts 2 then?
With the backdrop of the regional identities of the first century middle-east Spirit inspired speech redefines these boundaries. For those influenced by the Spirit in Acts 2 ‘tongues’ is a way of undermining the imperialism of Rome (a point I think most of you would agree with after reading ‘principles on kinism’).
I think the difference between you and I is that I believe this creates an alternative community marked by egalitarian community. The division (diamerizo) of tongues leads to the division (diamerizo) of property. There is no accommodation based on tribalism in the new economy of the Spirit.
For the sake of bibliography I got the above from Joel Green. He has some excellent insights on the relationship between Babel and Pentecost which you should check out. It’s in the book, ‘The Word Leaps the Gap’.
I do want to say something about my lack of communion with all of these supposed kinists in church history. One, I don’t care about anyone you quote except Calvin. To the quote of his that you site I have to respond that he is living in a feudal society which I cannot relate to. I doubt Calvin would have sanctioned the American Revolution (cf. Comm. on Gen. 381-82). Therefore, it is difficult for me to see him as an authority on the biblical way of living in this American ‘democracy’. What I do know is that Calvin would disapprove of the way you abuse the authority of post-apostolic history. “Here is the great strength of the Papists: ‘The thing is ancient-it was done long ago-let it, therefore, have the weight of a revelation from heaven’” (Comm. on 1 Cor. 369). Admin, you go on and on about how I refuse to address the fathers, and all I hear is the voice of Johann Eck. It’s overused but I can’t help it, Semper Reformanda!
You throw words at me like ‘gnostic’ and ‘neo-platanist’. Those are nice and fashionable slurs (NT Wright would be proud). Ironically, the only one claiming special knowledge around here is you. Apparently you are working with some kind of ESP epistemology that unequivocally knows who a parent wants their child to marry. Who’s the gnostic?
All that said, I’m afraid we are still talking past one another. I appreciate your willingness to answer me ‘in good faith’. I’ll gladly show you the same respect.
@ I as as tough as admin:
Old H.L. Mencken sure did have a way with words.
John, I appreciate the thought you’re putting into this. Even though we have disagreements, I admire anyone who shows that he can research a subject and not just parrot what he has heard or read.
True, language is used by God as an instrument for division. The multiplicity of languages created the tribes at Babel that had already begun to form in Gen. 10. But how does it follow that “there is no accommodation based on tribalism in the new economy of the Spirit”? This would take us right back to some form of Pentecost overturning Babel, would it not? It would also lead into a fallacious interpretation of Gal. 3:28 that denies continuing sexual differences.
The reason I sound like a broken record in bringing up the question of whether we agree with our forefathers or not is because it’s the best prima facie evidence for whether any of us are on the right track. Can our ancestors be wrong? Of course. But when 99% of them speak with one voice on a particular subject, we would be insane to pretend that the New Way, barely 60 years old, carries greater weight. Yet this is essentially what I hear from most Christians alive today.
This is not to claim special knowledge. Instead, it is to suggest that wiser men have already considered everything we’ve discussed here, to the best of their experience, and for far longer than the span of our lives. This doesn’t make them infallible, but if we don’t trust the judgment of our own fathers, what’s the point of abiding by any tradition whatsoever?
Pauling has a worthless diploma from a joke of a school, even by modern standards. (Note that’s not to say there aren’t a bunch of well-meaning, generally likeable people there.) While clearly intelligent, if he is “working construction” at present in Columbia, SC, he’s barely scraping by.
I suspect economic reality has thrust him into a situation where his wide eyed conceited ignorance has been whacked in the back of the head by the 2×4 of race reality, probably wielded by mestizo banditos, who are found to be somewhat different in the wild than in the theoretical, zoo-like environment of CIU, etc. But I’m sure the usual coterie of White drug addicts, alcoholics, thieves, and good-natured rapists who still lay about the fringes of the construction trade will be some sort of proof that weez really all ekwul–further supported by an off-point and out-of-context Bible verse.
Quote:
I think y’all are all pretty tame. Bravery does not abide anonymity. So, until you replace the pseudonyms with real names I will sit comfortably.
/Quote.
You sit comfortably precisely because you know no one here will hassle you. One doesn’t win the Heavyweight Championship by picking fights at the American Legion. Until you replace your snarky faux bravado with solid logic, I will continue to sit dumbfounded by your need to militantly defend your own dispossession by rationalizing its silliest aspects with Bible verses.
Funny isn’t it. . .
The very system that puts a man in the gutter is, at the end, the thing he’ll hold to tightest at the end. . .when the propaganda’s all that’s left.
What’s the line? “They can’t take that away from me”?
Oh, and Google Maps may be great, but there won’t be the satellite camera created to beam down the backstory.
“But when 99% of them speak with one voice on a particular subject, we would be insane to pretend that the New Way, barely 60 years old, carries greater weight.”
Especially if we apply the “know it by its fruits” Gospel principle.
During the modern times when churches have preached PC egalitarianism, has the Christian devotion of Western peoples, or the devotion of congregations themselves
increased or decreased?
Does doctrinaire racial egalitarianism tend to make people more willing to stick to Biblical principles, or push them further in the slippery slope of liberal apostasy?
(Saint MLK was a shameless theological modernist with very little respect for the authority of Scriptures.)
Along those lines, Petr, Chuck Colson’s idiotic article in the latest Christianity Today is instructive.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/june/19.49.html
We’ll dissect it a bit in the next post.
Mr. Paulling: You seem to be angry about our use of the word “gnostic.” But what are we to make of someone who seems to think that only spiritual distinctions are real and significant?
The Christian faith, in contast, teaches that God’s physical creation is also real and significant. In terms of salvation, there is indeed no male nor female. But does that mean God is indifferent to gender? God forbid.
Similarly, is God indiffernt to the ethnic and racial distinctions He has made among men? Certainly not! Paul especially loved his “kinsmen according to the flesh,” saved and unsaved. (Rom 9:1-3)
And while race and ethnicity in and of themselves don’t save anyone, Paul notes in Acts 17: 26-27 that the division of nations (significantly derived from race and ethnicity) encourages men “to seek after God.” If you wish to call this “tribalism” that’s fine. I call it God’s order. Also notice that this statement of Paul’s came after Pentecost. Note too that national distinctions last into eternity. (Rev. 19:24)
The notion that Christianity removes all distinctions among men, thus making them equal and interchangable is Marxist as well as gnostic. Taken to its logical conclusion, as the administrator pointed out, this would mean removing all boundaries among families. The fallacy here (of Marxist origin) is that that any distinctions amnong men are an expression of hatred and injustice. But the Ten Commanments say otherwise. Indeed we love our neighbors when we respect their property and kinship. Strong fences make good neighbors.
Finally, Mr. Paulling, are we really cowards for using pseudonyms? In today’s witch hunting hysteria of political correctness (PC), we risk our employment and the ability to provide for our families for questioning PC on race and ethnicity. So-called Christians have actually tried to do this to some of us.
What you call cowardice, we call prudence and common sense. And by the way, Mr. Paulling, just what risk do you take when you espouse today’s trendy egalitarianism?
I’d hate to contradict Mr. CL, but I was half-way thinking of taking Mr. Paulling up on his offer this weekend. (I readily agree with supposing the general poster here would never resort to barbarism, but I can’t think that any of us are afraid of ideological confrontation.)
I’m always fond of road trips, pleasant conversation, and good food; a combination I’d be eager to arrange if Mr. Paulling were willing.
I’ve been practicing Christian apologetics for at least 11 years now, and it’s been my experience that worldviews are never harmonized through exegetical discussions. Should we work through Acts 2, and all of Galatians, we’d have the next chapter and the next book standing by. And once those are gotten through, we’d have to continue our battle by confronting the facts of our experience. One after another in an exhausting debate.
So, if this meeting were to take place, I would (preferably over dinner at a nearby Olive Garden) tell Mr. Paulling my story, and describe to him my worldview such that it is and hope, if nothing else, to give him a focused view against which to strive.
Most Christians sympathize with it when presented this way, and very few have rejected it, though I admit to being naive and un-experienced still.
What do you say Mr. Paulling? Shall we peel back the masks of anonymity and scale the mountain of friendship? There’s dinner, civil conversation, and possibly a cigar in it for you (if you partake in that sort of habit.)
It is uncanny how right CL is. I guess he’s the one with the ESP epistemology.
Admin,
Looks like you’re being called out in front of a bunch of PCA-with-racist-history lamenters for wanting to remain solely among your own racial or ethnic group.
http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2010/07/why-didnt-they.html#comment-202715
I’ve never seen such a pathetic post and comments by men who have truly gone to the flowers.
Of course, I second Luther’s motion that we are saved by grace, not by race. We Kinists fall between atheist white nationalists and Judeochristians on the ideological spectrum. The former don’t know what to do with us because we don’t worship the white race or believe, as they do, that we are evolving into deities. The latter don’t know what to do with us because they have drunk the Commie Kool-Aid and have trouble remembering anything about the Christian faith prior to St. MLK.
NC, Anthony Bradley loves to bellyache about his treatment at the hands of Kinists, but he brought almost all of it on himself. And what was brought on him? Nothing more than commentary on his own public words. He has toned it down quite a bit as he has grown older, but he used to write such outrageous things that he was widely lampooned. Only by people like us, of course. His handlers never punished him as they would have punished a white man, because he’s a token. You can find many of his outrageous statements documented here at this website if you search for his name or his aliases, Slappy and Anfernee.
Thanks for the link. I’ll enjoy reading it.
Hi again John,
You’ve cut to the heart of our disagreement. I suppose the main question remaining would be where the Bible establishes that the Church is an “egalitarian community?” You said, “The division (diamerizo) of tongues leads to the division (diamerizo) of property. There is no accommodation based on tribalism in the new economy of the Spirit.” Please eleborate on, clarify, and defend this idea.
I’m sure you are aware that “all men are created equal” is not in the Bible. The main kinist issue is that national separation and distinctiveness is a biblical mandate. You spoke about American democracy, but frankly I think that American democracy is part of the problem. I don’t think that American democracy is sanctioned by the Bible. I suspect your views may have more to do with living under modern American democracy than thorough biblical exegesis, but maybe you can convince me otherwise.
Also I agree with others that think that somehow using a pseudonym is perfectly acceptable. This practice has a long and well-respected tradition in the West. I used to post my real name and people starting trying to dig into my background and it made me uncomfortable. We tend to use pseudonyms for the same reason that many ancient Christians worshiped in catacombs and political theorists wrote with Latin pseudonyms. I recall that Doug Wilson instituted a rule on his “blog” that you had to leave a name and contact information, including the contact information of their pastor! I don’t think that anyone could honestly think that this was honestly intended to stimulate conversation. It is intended to insure that comments are kept within politcally correct orthodoxy. The previous admin of Little Geneva received threats and the website was hacked. There is no reason why any of us have to endure any of that kind of treatment. I’ll keep my identity private if you don’t mind.
By the way, I think it’s important to clarify one thing that NC said, unintentionally, I’m sure, about “wanting to remain solely among your own racial or ethnic group.” This is not true, any more than I want to remain solely among my own family members. I mean, who wants to endure the never-ending family reunion? Lord have mercy.
Think back to a healthier age, when white men were fascinated by the Orient, for example. Africa too. Diversity was alluring because it was diverse, and differences were respected; there was no desire to amalgamate. Similarly, when you sit down to a meal, you enjoy the taste of segregated meat, bread, and vegetables. If you were to put it all in a blender and drink it with a straw, everyone would think there’s something wrong with you.
We simply expect the church and state to see to it that our people survive, and if they abdicate their responsibilities, we’ll see to it that they’re replaced.
Just as my family is not replaceable with another, neither is our American tribe or our white race. Anyone, foreign or domestic, who seeks to do them harm is our enemy.
Anyway, I just wanted to be clear on that point, and it’s a sensitive one, because the standard slander against Kinists is that we oppose missions or associating in any way with those who are not like us. This is quite false. We believe resources should always be allocated along a scale of human loyalty, but as necessity dictates, we gladly help anyone in need, regardless of his lineage.
I would love to arrange something like that, Shotgun. That’s all right up my alley (including the finer things you mentioned). Email me a time that would work for you, and we can set it up. That was what I hoped for at the outset.
Luther, I understand your point about anonymity. I have read other comments on this blog that say similar things which is why I chose not to berate you with that point as others have. I was somewhat exasperated when I made manifest my ‘faux bravado’ and I probably should have tempered myself. Nevertheless, I think your anonymity is a tactical mistake. Points are sunk deeper into the hearts of men when they see others make them at great cost to themselves. Take Bonhoeffer for example (I’m sure you think of him as Neo-Orthodox, but bear with me) here is a man whose work maybe would have never gained the notoriety it gained save his untimely death. I for one, think the world of his books, but I know many believe that his work does not demonstrate the excellence needed to gain the fame he gained, as they stand on their own (cf. Marilynne Robinsons’ excellent book ‘The Death of Adam’). Therefore, I wonder if your anonymity does your ideology a massive disservice? Especially something that you hold as so central to your worldview. Is this hiding your light under a bushel? Just a thought.
You bring up an interesting point with Acts 17. I have always thought that Paul makes that point because he is speaking to Stoics, men that would have been deeply concerned about seeing all of humanity as a brotherhood. I assume you want to zero in on the line, ‘having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.’ This is where I’m afraid I’m not understanding exactly what Kinism wants to get across. To me, the thrust of this verse is Paul’s explication of the sovereignty of God. Yes, to Paul it was obvious that there are these divisions amongst peoples. I have no problem with that whatsoever. My problem comes when we move from distinctions to hierarchy. You may not be saying that, but that is what I have been lead to believe y’all are asserting.
A few people have brought up the deficiency in my interpretation of Gal. 3:28. They say that if Paul is arguing for an egalitarianism amongst ethnicities, why does he not do that with gender? This is a penetrating question. I %100 believe in gender roles. The problem though in moving from this to ethnicity is that the Bible does not dictate the roles of specific ethnic groups the way he does genders. For example there may be such a thing as Proverbs 31 woman, but I’ve never read anything that dictates something like that for a specific kin. To me, Paul is breaking down the implicit caste systems we live with. This will only fully happen in the eschaton, but we bring glimpses of it here to earth by creating counter-intuitive social orders. This is not Marxism. I am not talking about anything state-sanctioned. Here me clearly, roles can still exist. They may find their expression in certain vocations, they may find them elsewhere, but the Church must be careful to never privilege any role above another. Again, where does the Bible outline roles for ethnic groups in the same way that it does gender?
I’m more confused than angry about the charge of gnosticism. I am reticent of any theology that speaks about spiritual realities only. If the inner-workings of the Spirit in an individual’s life do not bear fruit in something seeable I would take issue with his claim to being regenerate. Kinism is not the only ideology that opposes gnosticism. I am arguing that real local churches ought to be expressions of a massive reorientation of the social order. At these churches people worship someone that is not themselves, they give generously in a way that otherwise they never would, they build deep ties (ties that resemble and emulate ties with kin) with people they would’ve never imagined being close to, and the rallying point is Christ. If this is not saying that bodies matter then I remain bewildered.
One clarification:
When I say roles may find an expression within kin-groups I am not saying that this eliminates mobility. For example, it would be true to say that the Mayans were generally excellent sea-farers, but that would not eliminate an individual Mayan from being an architect, lets say. Paullings may be okay mechanics, but there may be a Paulling that breaks the mold and is a decent carpenter. Our times do alter this a bit due to increased opportunities for mobility.
Very good point admin. This point definitely needed to be brought up since it is a common objection to kinism, including on recent posts on Anthony’s blog.
John, you make a good point about the bond of Christ in the church. I, for one, take pleasure in seeing people of different classes, wealth, and aptitude approach the Lord’s table on Sunday as equals, just as we approach the bar of justice. (As is usually the case, even today, races tend to worship separately, knowing that harmony would be attenuated otherwise.) But there are two things that I find interesting. The first is that Jesus did not preach an equality in the Spirit. He said the first would be last, and some would have a greater reward than others. Secondly, the only way in which we are really equal is our equal inability to save ourselves. This is where grace comes in, as you know. The main point we wish to make is that the differences that God takes pleasure in building into his creation are not leveled as a result of our common need for a Savior. This is where we take issue with what seems to be most Christians alive today, although I hope that’s not true.
I’m sad to announce that Mr. Ritchie has responded (in a rather unfortunate way) to this post.
See here, and at best, I hope we can formalize and shore up our positions by defending from this sort of rhetoric:
http://confessionalpuritan.forumcircle.com/viewtopic.php?p=6179
Hey guys, The atheist at unreasonablefaith.com are talking about you in this post http://unreasonablefaith.com/2010/07/11/stigmata/#comments. nazani14 rails on you in his comments about half down the page.
- The III
admin,
You said, ‘the differences God takes pleasure in building into his creation are not leveled as a result of our common need for a Savior.’
Would you mine detailing some of those differences?
This is exactly what we’ve been talking about. God loves diversity, and for our own protection, he enforces divisions. It says so right there in Acts 17. We have no right to come along behind Him and correct his “mistakes” in the name of love. It’s not love but hate to separate what God has united or unite what He has separated.
John,
Earlier you mentioned gender roles and asked if there are analagous race roles. The role that race plays is in the character of the nation state. It is indeed biblically normative for people to be ruled by their own ethnic kin (Deut. 17:15). It is aberrant for nations, kindreds, and races to mix freely; and when they do lawlessness and breakdown of authority invariably occurs (Genesis 11:6, Daniel 2:43). Indeed, there is not one example in history of large-scale mixing occuring where this was not the result. This includes modern America as well as ancient Rome as Petr pointed out.
It has been pointed out that third world immigration is great, because this way people from non-Christian backgrounds will be exposed to the Gospel. They should keep in mind that this does not result in large degree. In many ways people come here from fairly traditional societies and wind up falling into the same immoral, decadent, materialistic lifestyle that is typical of modern America. In this regard assimilation to prevailing American culture can only be a bad thing. God separated the nations because this is what He has decreed to be the natural arrangement of humanity so that we will grope for Him and find Him (Acts 17:26-27).
All this said John. I very much commend you for continuing this discussion in the manner that you have. Folks like John Lofton show up here, drop rhetorical grenades and retreat to the safety of their intellectual bunkers. Also as to my earlier remark about “modern evangelicals” I didn’t mean to be too broad and lump you into a category that doesn’t fit you. It’s obvious that you are digging much deeper than most folks who ask loaded questions and then run away. Thanks for your friendly spirited questions.
No ESP required. Just observation, memory, and backbone.
And three cheers for Pauling. He seems a basically good sort.
Ditto to the three of you. You have all confounded the presuppositions that I came to this website with. Even you CL, I have never been insulted so eloquently in my life, well done.
I will close with two observations about our disagreements:
One, there seems to me to be a disconnect in the way that we want to talk about the Bible, the Church, and the rest of the world. It would be cheesy for me to reduce it to the question of ‘Christ and culture’, but to my dismay I think this is again the heart of the issue. I will say, this is the most fascinating conversation of this sort I have had in a while. We continue to come to loggerheads on how the Bible prescribes the behavior of the Church, and what sense this would make to the rest of our lives. These are unsettled questions for me, and you have had an impact on that. Nevertheless, I see the second half of Eph. 2 as having a broader application than you have wanted to give it.
Secondly, I am unconvinced of the preeminence you place on the role of kin-groups. SF is right, I am an American, but I simply don’t know what to do about that. I don’t think it right to despair of or couter-act my situatedness. Admin may or may not be right about the solidarity of our fathers on this issue (I want more time), but it seems to me that this is a case where historical context will play a large role. Again, Calvin may not be the greatest authority on life in 21st century America. Even if you are right about the fathers, it remains clear to me that the Bible is less concerned.
I don’t mean these comments to continue the conversation. I am aware they are too vague and general for that.
I will continue to read your posts, and comment on them. I appreciate how cordial this conversation has become. It is rare for a disagreement of this variety to end this way.
Hi guys, I’m not sure how many people here follow facebook, but Bret McAtee just posted an interesting note on immigration:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/notes/bret-l-mcatee/random-thoughts-on-illegal-immigration-solutions-offered/417693908671
“A biblical approach to immigration would be to allow untrammeled immigration AND to have provision by which unbelieving immigrants could not change a godly social order. This is what you find in the Old Testament.”
What gives? This seems to be a strange quote in an otherwise good analysis of the immigration situation in America. Thoughts?
Few dishes can be savoured as delectably as the C.E. Christian liberal served up on his liberalism en brochette.
The Christian faith is incarnational.
The Eternal Logos – “true God from true God; true Light from true Light; Begotten and not created, of One Being with the Father” …took flesh and dwelt among us.
He came unto his own – his own people, tribally, ethnically and in Covenant relation with God. He comes to fulfill and not destroy. He desires to baptise nations as nations – not destroy nations and amalgamate them into geopolotical entities lost in uncharted sociological space, cultural anomie and transgendered derangement.
Christianity both fulfills the pillars of our human identity: gender, race, ethnicity, kindred, religion and liberates us by fulfillment in Him.
The new creation in Christ – the God-man race transends human identity but in no way leaves it behind.
Men and women as men and women become complete in Christ as men and women – not something else. Their ethnos becomes Christified and their culture blooms and bears its unique fruit when their nation adopts (as a nation) the Apostolic government of the New Covenant.
Among the ethnicities / nations and kindreds of Europe, this process of entire nations baptised into Christ occurred at the level of the race and formed the Katolicum and the Christendom from the Atlantic to the Urals.
Even though that Christopherian race be reduced to a mere remnant we see our archetype and heroic code in the patterns of our Christian Bardic cultures.
I refer to what J.R.R. Tolkien called “that noble northern spirit, a supreme contribution to Europe, which I have ever loved and tried to present in its true light. Nowhere incidentally, was it nobler than in England, nor more early sanctified and Christianized.”
J.R.R. Tolkien. The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien. 1981 London:Unwin Paperbacks,p.56.
Tolkien believed the supreme statement of the Northern heroic code occurred in the OE poem “The Battle of Maldon” that commemorates the Viking victory over the English (991 A.D.).
This is the statement of the King’s retainer Beorhtwold faithful beyond fear:
“Bolder the heart; the purpose harder; the spirit more fell – as strength fails.”
In the OE poem, Tolkien felt too much of pagan battle fury and rashness still haunted that expression of the code. In “BoM” this led to Beorthtnoth’s rash decision to give the Viking host passage of the river and entrance to the level field of the rivermeadows.
Tolkien re-envisioned the code in terms of the Christian virtue of prudence and temperance in The Lord of the Rings.
In Tolkien’s saga it is the Numenorian race that bears the high legacy of the Western race among men. He gives many exempla of his re-envisioning for the time that he clearly foresaw was coming.
In that saga “The Siege of Gondor” it is the remnant of the Numenorian race under the command of Gandalf (an immortal) who fight the last defenses of Minas Tirith, the City of Kings.
“So it was that Gandalf took command of the last defence of the City. Wherever he came mens’ hearts would lift again and the winged shadow pass from memory. Tirelessly he strode from Citadel to Gate, from north to south about the wall; and with him went the Prince of Dol Amroth in his shining mail. For he and his knights still held themselves as lords in whom the race of Numenor ran true. Men that saw them whispered saying: ‘Belike the old tales speak well; there is Elvish blood in the veins of that folk; for the people of Nimrodel dwelt once in their land [Belfalas of Gondor] once long ago.’ And then one would sing amid the gloom some staves of the Lay of Nimrodel , or other songs of the Vale of Anduin out of the vanished years.”
To my mind, Tolkien clearly foresaw the fall of the West; he foresaw a desperate hour beyond all human hope of victory. He wrote this and other passages precisely for that time. He wrote this and similar passages for the instruction of a generation who would live through the times of the vision of Ragnorak.
Described by the Scilds as the spectre of the Ninth Night with the wind howling across a torrid waste, the skein of all life unraveling as the end of the aeon passes under the shadow; a time when angels and men would fight against the powers of hell in a war that from the human standpoint would be hopeless.
He the Christoferian race a template for that time.
JP, you wrote: “SF is right, I am an American, but I simply don’t know what to do about that.” At the risk of sounding like a broken record again, I can’t resist pointing out that our fathers knew exactly what to do about it.
SF, I like Bret a lot, but he has always been confused on this point. He is leaving out the one detail that changes his entire Old Testament immigration theory: tribal property rights. If we could prevent our land from being purchased away from us and eliminate the anchor baby law, sealing the border would not be the priority it has become. There’s nothing wrong with migrant workers if they are peaceful and remain migrants. Bret needs to work on his theory.
Thanks admin. I’m in agreement. True migrants would not be a problem with the biblical principles of tribal property rights and kin rule.
Even the most ardent egalitarian Judeochristian will insist that he is not condoning the abrogation of nationhood or gender distinction. But in point of fact, his exegesis demands it. This is why the nation must be redefined by such men as an arbitrary geopolitical identity -the so-called proposition nation.
But nowhere in scripture, or in the extant works of the church fathers is it so defined. Indeed, the geopolitical nation is a modern novelty, and militates against the very unities of heritage and descent that are conducive of the peace, order, lawfulness, and harmony that are the primary objectives of God-ordained government. Any system of polity that diverts from pursuit of these goals flirts with illegitimacy. The modern imperial state is unified by exactly what, riven as it is with deep divisions religious, ethnic, political, economic? And this is the preferred substitute for the ethnostate? It is a comical suggestion, and indulges in superstitions of the rankest sort.
It is only by the monopoly of force that there is unity in the imperial state. It is an ersatz unity underwritten by violence and the shadow of violence. Such illusory, synthetic congeniality is not to be desired and does not conform to the desideratum of “good government.” The center does not hold, but rather the hegemonic center expands and consumes all, indifferent to the divergences of birth, temperament, and history that form the god-ordained boundaries of biology, time, and circumstance that cause us to seek Him. We Kinists often see references made to the triviality “skin colour,” as though this were the only facet of race. It is to laugh that this is held up as a serious argument. If skin color were the only facet of race, then perhaps these men would have a point. But it is not, and the findings of biological psychology, genetics, and other scientific disciplines cannot be erased by the mere suggestion that race is nothing more than a word to describe a fallacy of hasty induction.
Indeed the drive to total geopolitical unity can hardly be opposed by a doctrine of nations that makes no distinction between the theoretical means and opportunity of salvation and the aforementioned divergences of history -which they call “accident” as if it occurred somehow apart from the will of God- divergences that make us who and what we are. Those who espouse this confusion of categories often suffer from self-induced blindness to the logical imperatives of the position, and often enough fail to see they are making use of the very same exegesis that the Marxist promulgators of Liberation Theology utilize to argue the sinfulness of the nation-state itself, or the evil of property, or the satanic origins of gender distinction.
Your argument, sir, belongs in the same class, and relies on the same presuppositions. We Kinists often find that far from seeking a thoroughly biblical approach to the doctrine of nations, our opponents have a priori socio-political commitments that arise from settled convictions on what the Bible can and cannot mean -irrespective of what it actually SAYS.
There proceeds from this a radical dissonance between the theoretical stance taken, and the realpolitik that is seen in his doxa, or the received common opinions that he cherishes on subjects of immediate practical importance, such as illegal immigration. This dissonance often escalates to existential crisis when he becomes aware of it. From this crisis, Kinists are often born. The Judeochristian would keep the nation, but strip it of its natality, retain gender, but dissipate its meaning, guard borders that are no more meaningful than the lines on a map, signifying nothing of importance.
As the unity of marriage, so the unity of society. Unequally yoked marriages become radically balkanized societies, inevitably. In reality, the contemporary reformed lexicon bowdlerizes the ancient and universally accepted definition of nationality. We could call forth the evidence of nature, the order of the created world, ad infinitum. The entire creation speaks the language “kind after kind.” Is man to exist contra naturam? Hardly, for from dust he came and to dust he shall return. Man is the crown of creation, not radically “other.” He is situated within the creation and partakes of the laws God has ordained to govern it.
This “transitive property” that conflates soteriological universality with absolute biological confluence could not do more violence to the biblical doctrine of nations were it actually intended to do so. And in some cases it is.
We note a dearth of references from the Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine, from the works of the great Reformers, as they speak with one voice on the subjects of natality and marriage.
That said, you seem to be a gracious sort, and so we’ll leave off for now and let you process the objections offered.
Mr. Paulling:
In light of the conclusion of the scuffle, I hope you release me from our visit this weekend without accusation.
Ms. Lynda:
I’m inspired by your commentary on Tolkien! I remember being likewise inspired by something you wrote in a lost archive of SWB, and would very much appreciate a further description of St. Patrick’s confrontation of the Pagan magicians in Ireland. In place of further commentary on your part, can you recommend a book on the topic?
Mr. Admin and SFayre:
I agree with your respect and admiration for Mr. McAtee.
I hope you guys will forgive a link to my personal blog. I post it here because its so relevant to the discussion, and hope that my linking is not seen as some sort of shameless self-promotion:
http://shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/joel-mcdurmon-on-immigration/
Joel McDurmon of American Vision recently did a three-part video series (about 30 min. total) on a Biblical doctrine of immigration. He relies on Hoffmeier’s book “The Immigration Crises: Immigrants, Aliens, and the Bible” to inform his presentation, (I now own a copy as well, and attest to Hoffmeier’s precision.)
In the link above I have gathered all three clips together for easy access and transcribe, what seems to be, comments that may support a Kinist position on the topic.
McAtee’s bizarre passage is his convoluted, faux-intellectual attempt to express the idea “Me no racis’!”. . .with rhetorical thumbs gesturing inwardly, head wildly shaking “No!” with near-whiplash energy.
It’s the thinly-veiled equivalent of ending a recounting of one’s terrible experience with X by concluding, “But I’m not a racist, my best friend is an albino pygmy.”
Shotgun, you can’t cancel now! J’accuse! J’accuse!
Hell, I’d settle for Rush’s and a peach white owl, but I’m sick.
Simply analyzing the text…,
Is it not essentially true that throughout the bible Satan has one, and only one, theme common in his every appearance in the text?
And isn’t that to promote “equality”? His counter-gospel, so to speak?
Isn’t that what he preached to Adam and Eve? Equality, with God?
Wasn’t his attacks upon Job done in effort to prove that Job could be made equal to all others in absence of God’s blessings? (the book of Job is one long sermon against the argument that equal opportunity/circumstance = equal outcome…aka the “social gospel”)
And wasn’t the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness an attempt to get him to surrender his claim as The Christ, thus making him equal with other men?
I think a theological case could be made that the pursuit (and entire point) of “equality” ends with the world agreeing that Jesus was not God incarnate, but just another wannabe philosopher, i.e., equal with the rest of us.
Really, wasn’t that Satan’s downfall? His pursuit of equality with God?
Isn’t THAT the great sin of all the ages? The pursuit of equality with God: the attempt to deny him any special stature and thus make him equal with us.
And you don’t have to elevate the people up to achieve that. You can simply bring Him down amongst them, pat him on the back and call him Ol’ Buddy.
In point of fact I’ve noticed that the more Christians come to embrace the Philosophy of Equality, the more their referential reverence for Jesus declines.
They go from referring to him in awe as the King of Kings and Lord or Lords to casually referring to him as their “Homy”, their “Bestfriend”, their Boyfirend”, their “Buddy”, their “Pal” and other such similar tags which demote him to being “one of us”, thus taking the initial steps towards achieving “equality” with God.
A king ruling over a people who’ve come to embrace equality, has been effectively de-throned.
…
And as a general, observable, historical fact,
In Chaos, all distinctions are blurred.
In Order, all distinctions are enhanced.
…
I think you’re on to something important there, Narrator. I especially love the last part about chaos and order. This is one of those things that everyone knows to be true but few are willing to say openly.
“It is aberrant for nations, kindreds, and races to mix freely; and when they do lawlessness and breakdown of authority invariably occurs (Genesis 11:6, Daniel 2:43). Indeed, there is not one example in history of large-scale mixing occuring where this was not the result.”
Again I might invoke the “you shall know the tree by its fruits” principle: can one point out any really mixed mulatto-nation that is, or has been, famous for its Christian piety and devotion?
One can examples of one-nation communities – or all races – that have shown true Biblical commitment, but has there been any truly “multicultural” society in history that Christians could look upon as moral inspiration?
Christianity has worked a moral transformation even among former headhunters of Southeast Asia, but nota bene: believers there have not lost their national or tribal identity after their conversion:
http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3893&highlight=headhunters
“Today, images of Jesus Christ, not desiccated human skulls, adorn Khala’s small house in the hills around Kohima, the capital of India’s northeast state of Nagaland. The region, once notorious worldwide for its savagery, has now become India’s most Christian-dominant area. It’s known as “the most Baptist state in the world.”
…
After India achieved independence in 1947, Naga separatists (many of them Christians) fought fiercely for independence from India. India’s government expelled all foreign missionaries from Nagaland, suspecting them of fueling the Nagas’ desire for independence. Finally, after years of violence, India permitted Nagaland to become a “self-governing” state inside India. But entry into and exit from Nagaland is monitored closely, even today, since Christian rebels still advocate complete independence (their slogan: “Nagalim for Christ”).”
Dear Shotgun,
I am glad to read that you liked my reflection upon Tolkien. I reread his great saga every decade of my life and with every re-reading a new horizon is revealed to my ken. There is no doubt in my mind that he is England’s greatest bard for the post-Christian times.
Of course, now we have moved beyond post-Christian, post everything times. We are in anno Lucifer – the year 2,000 Anno Domine being, 6000 anno (probably that should be ano) Lucifer.
I am a Mrs, btw. And my family is Irish on my husband’s side and Cornish on my side.
Probably the best book on St Patrick is from my parish library Archbishop Healey: Life of St Patrick (1905).
Clan Doyle has some great material on St Padraig (as well as some great Irish harp) http://www.doyle.com.au/saint_patrick.htm.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has distilled much of the oral tradition around St Patrick. And it is to the oral tradition (which will be the Bardic tradition) that I give much credence. See St Patrick
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/1554a.htm.
Moderns have a huge problem with miraculous events. They can not credit Apostolic works and the works of saints whose lives closely model the Acts. I have no difficulty at all with the gist of this lore and the oral tradition.
Long before this was ever written down, the people preserved this tradition of their great bishop in the laodh which was sung at the hearthside.
The fact of history is that entire nations of people together with their kings and chiefs converted to the Gospel in a very short space of time. Ancient and pre-historic peoples were not just sitting there in caves doing nothing and waiting for the Gospel.
In the temptation of Christ, Satan states that all the kingdoms of this age (aeon or age of the world) have been given to himself -”for such have been delivered to me”. And these will he give to Christ – if only Christ will worship him, Lucifer.
The ancient Irish were no different than anyone else B.C. – they were under tribute to Lucifer through a ruling priesthood.
Not just anyone, goes to Ireland in the 4th century Anno Domine and breaks the power of the Druid Bond at the seat of the High King in Tara and persuades all the Clans to throw down the altars of human sacrifice. For this was Lucifer’s entire slave / sacrifice system which terrorized the human race for millenia (and which we are now getting back with interest).
Only the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour and King has the power to do that. And St Padrick was annointed for the mission to Eire by two popes. He went as an apostle and as a successor to the Apostles. By God’s grace, it was given him to manifest the Apostolic charismata against the works of darkness for the salvation of a nation.
And so great were his works of penance and mortification that the Father, (who Alone, as our Saviour states has the knowledge of the times), revealed to St Padraic that He determined the times of the Anti-Christ upon Ireland.
The Angel of the Father revealed to St Patrick that the nation of Eire (claimed for our Lord with such manifestation of great Apostolic charismata as had pleased Him to reveal in St Patrick) would itself be claimed by our Lord by means of the sea before He would yield that land to the Anti-Christ.
And now, as the Great Apostasy widens across Europe, we see the remnant Catholics burning their own cathedrals rather than yield them up to some heretic, sodomite and violator of innocence appointed over them by anti-pope Benedict.
Is this some legend, that the Angel of the Father revealed to St Padrick that our Lord would never yield Eire? I think the Bardic Tradition of Ireland does speak true that the Angel of the Father spoke to St Patrick of His sovereign counsel and foreknowledge. He said that the Day of Judgement itself would be determined upon 7 years from the year that the sea claimed the Island of Saints and Scholars because our Lord never would yield that land to the reign of the Anti-Christ.
So great was the apostolic zeal and charism, penance and mortification revealed for the salvation of Eire by St Patrick, that our Lord reigning until all His enemies are under His feet will never yield Eire – even though the entire world pass under the shadow.
“There are many good reasons for forbidding marriages between old men and young girls.”….Between Ruth and Boaz, for instance? I see you provided no supporting scripture (because there is none). Who a girl from another family marries is none of your business. I understand that your God Calvin wrote such laws. But in a Christian land, no such laws will exist. ( I am a Reformed Presbyterian, highly respectful of Calvin, but not a worshiper of him like some people are)
The mere example of a thing in the life of an OT personage does not by default make of it an exemplar.
“Who a girl from another family marries is none of your business.”
Perhaps, but it certainly may be society’s business, just as in the ethnostate of Israel, it was very much the business of its judges to regulate who might marry whom. We seem to have read of it in the scripture, just as we have read of the regulation against unequal yoking.
Of course, employing a trivializing, reductionistic hermeneutic, you might attempt to divert us from the broader context of this directive, but we are not so child-like as to believe that this law had primarily in view the regulation of which beasts of burden might be teamed to pull a plow.