Al Cronkrite for President
November 18, 2008 
12 Comments
The “Christian” gestapo jumped all over Al Cronkrite for calling Obama a “half-breed,” which is true, and does not nearly grate against the gestapo’s nerves as what Obama called himself, a “mutt.” Now Al returns with sharper iron, the best article he has ever written, and a defense of the Christian ban on miscegenation:
In our manipulated, schizophrenic world we are sentencing human beings, God’s highest order of creation, to jail for killing government protected animal species while at the same time working toward the destruction of diverse human races with miscegenation and multiculturalism.
Yes, that’s exactly what pastors and their hapless funders are doing: destroying humanity. It is difficult to imagine how anything could be more godless.
Al makes many important points that you might miss if you read too quickly. Notice that, while Christians are apt to view ancient Israel as merely the church in embryo, it was in fact a kin-based nation that was God’s gift to Abraham for his obedience. God kept it pure of strange blood, and when the people disobeyed His command to not mix with strangers, they fell into idolatry, “and the miscegenation that followed created serious and lasting problems.”
Humanistic support for mixing different races will not only destroy the diversity God created but will also wipe out the diversity the evil forces claim to support. It is a rebellion against God and has nothing to do with being a White Supremacist. God created different races and attempting to amalgamate what God has separated is clearly sinful.
As for the suggestion that mulattoes like Obama “should not be disdained for the sins of their parents,”
The Bible does not support the contentions of my critics. I would cite Ishmael as an example. Ishmael, like every human baby, had nothing to do with his birth. He was the product of miscegenation. Isaac received God’s blessing and Ishmael, though blest, was never an equal in the eyes of God or the opinion of God’s people. The sins of the parents are passed on to children. This fact should give us pause when sin rears its often comely head.
I sometimes wonder if most of our Christian leaders have actually read the entire Bible…
So do we, Al, so do we. I don’t know if Al has ever called himself a Kinist, but what he writes here is straight out of the Kinist playbook (i.e., Holy Scripture). Bravo! Magnificent!
I have been having kinist discussions with several in my church–including my pastors. They don’t agree with me (all hail Galatians 3:28 and Pentecost!!) but they have been gracious in listening to me. Lord willing, I hope to have a slow but steady progression towards opening their eyes to the truth of the Bible.
Oh where is our Nehemiah?!
Galatians 3:28 is speaking of the ‘Spiritual sphere’ (In Christ). It does not do away with physical distinctions that God has placed upon men. For example, the same verse states that there is no longer any ‘male or female’. Does that mean that we should make no distinction as to gender? If the Egalitarian interpretation is true, then yes. Yet these same brothers inconsistently oppose same sex marriage. But we know that this verse is only speaking of our equal standing ‘before Christ’ and is not doing away with physical distinctions.
The same goes for Pentecost. The distinctions of mankind were not turned around in the ‘physical realm’ as to race and gender. Whereas God’s working was primarily through one nation/language in the OT, He has now ‘reversed’ this and calls all nations to Christ (Spiritual Realm). Now there is no longer any distinction between the Jew or Greek in regards to salvation (Spiritually) whereas before there was (Am. 3:2). That is why the disciples were to preach to ‘all nations’ (not just the Jews). This has nothing to do with bringing ‘all nations’ together into one political entity or doing away with all physical distinctions.
Paul still had a special love for his brethren ‘according to the flesh’(Rom.9:3) even after Pentecost. Interesting enough, Matthew Henry stated that we will give a special account on how we treated our ‘kinsmen’:
“Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. We ought to be in a special manner concerned for the spiritual good of our relations, our brethren and kinsmen. To them we lie under special engagements, and we have more opportunity of doing good to them; and concerning them, and our usefulness to them, we must in a special manner give account.” (Matthew Henry on Romans 9:3)
We don’t think it can be stated any better than what the Nail just said. That’s a very good quote from Matthew Henry, which raises another interesting thing to ponder. You can line up each of the passages the race-mixing preachers use to support their Communism, such as the supposedly black wife of Moses, and you won’t find any commentators who agree with them. (Matthew Henry said Numbers 12 is about Zipporah the Midianite, not Aunt Jemima.) The race-mixing preachers hate it when this is pointed out to them because it reminds them that their patricidal theology is not even as old as they are. Every Christ-hater alive agrees with them on miscegenation and every last one of our Christian forefathers disagreed with them. That’s a track record only a liberal could appreciate.
Apparently, I gave the wrong impression regarding my reference to Galatians 3:28 and Pentecost–I was being sarcastic. I actually agree with y’all’s views on those subjects 100%.
Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, we could detect the sarcasm. And believe me, we love sarcasm.
Another important point is that God’s judgment at Babel was not made obsolete by a new covenant with a better High Priest. Language, race, and other barriers prevent mankind from being absolutely unified, and this is a good thing because of man’s sinful nature. Many men have wanted to conquer the world and have been unable because of God’s righteous judgment at Babel. And 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.
The race-mixer considers God’s work to be a huge mistake and has taken it upon himself to come along behind God and clean up the mess. “Oh, sure, God created races by accident, but since Pentecost He desires for them to throw the five-course meal in the blender and turn it into a beautiful green mush.” How they extract this insanity from Pentecost has always been a mystery to me since it was a crowd of Israelites that Peter addressed on that day. Fast forward to Revelation, and we see the nations (plural) of them which are saved walking in the light of the New Jerusalem. During the time in between, the church apparently failed to bring to fruition Marren Loofer Keen’s Dream of easier access to White women.
I’ve always seen Gal 3:28 as a rebuke of a Pharisaical notion of superiority. Perhaps a portion of an old seminary paper will help. One caveat: my beliefs about the word “racism” have since changed. Perhaps it is better to substitue “Jewish Supremacy” for “racism” in what follows.
————————
…[f]irst, the unqualified removal of gender, race, and social distinctions would prove too much. Paul does not teach absolute racial equality,[1] does not discountenance slavery,[2]and does not remove all gender distinctions.[3] Second, the passage is given in the context of Paul’s rebuke to the Judaizers who are focusing on the Jewish-ness of salvation, in this case the un-biblical Jewish-ness of their traditions. The Jew of early Christianity had a morning prayer in which he would thank God that he was not a Gentile, a slave, or a woman. More Talmudic laws—and, thus, in the Jewish mind more privileges—were given to free, Jewish males, and Paul is likely rebuking this custom.[4] Galatians 3:28, therefore, is not a window passage for Evangelical Feminism, but a window passage against Talmudic chauvinism and racism.[5]”
[1] Gentiles do not have the Jewish blessings of Romans 9:4, and God meted out (in general) a racial hardening of the Jews for a time (2 Cor. 3: 14-15).
[2] While Christian slaves were admonished to take any lawful opportunity for freedom (1 Cor. 7:20-24), Paul tells slave owners to treat their slaves with care (Eph. 6:9), and slaves to work diligently (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22-23).
[3] The passages cited in this paper showing the qualifications of elders, the commands for women to remain silent and to learn in submission, etc., all show, regardless of the interpretation, that there are gender distinctions and privileges. The only escape here is to claim that these texts are culturally entrapped. But Paul’s thundering, gender-privileged language in 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2 is made on his appeal to the created order.
[4] S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Role Distinctions in the Church: Galatians 3:28,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism”, eds. John Piper, and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991), p. 158.
[5] Limits constrain me to a few of many examples: Racism: “Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world” (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a); “A heathen [Gentile] who pries into the Torah [and other Jewish Scriptures] is condemned to death, for it is written, it is our inheritance, not theirs.” (Sanhedrin 59a). Chauvinism: “A Jewish man must prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.” (Menahoth 43b-44a.)
“Whereas God’s working was primarily through one nation/language in the OT, He has now ‘reversed’ this and calls all nations to Christ (Spiritual Realm). Now there is no longer any distinction between the Jew or Greek in regards to salvation (Spiritually) whereas before there was (Am. 3:2). That is why the disciples were to preach to ‘all nations’ (not just the Jews). ”
One Pound: Where is it written that the ‘all nations’ in Christ’s “Great Commission” means ALL NATIONS, EVERYWHERE ON THE GLOBE? And where is it written that the God who ‘loved His Own’ so much, that he INCARNATED Himself, suddenly ‘goes spiritual’ on us, especially in the matter of the election and calling of His NT Church? Why the Pauline imagery of a “Bride and Bridegroom” then- if, in Heaven, ‘they neither marry or are given in marriage?’ Surely, a KINGDOM on Earth (as it is in Heaven) is envisioned among the INCARNATED denizens of a ‘revived’ Davidic realm, known as Christendom is to be inferrred, rather than a merely ‘spiritual’ realm…..
Where can one infer that, if the ‘middle wall’ between Judean and Hellene (the EXACT terms in the NT Greek, I believe) as opposed to the far less geographically delimited ‘Jew and Greek’, means (at the very most) any MORE than JUST the Greek-speaking ROMAN citizens vs. the HEBREW-speaking denizens of the land of Judea?
(including in that mix, BTW, the apostate Edomites, whom Josephus said had ‘taken over’ the Governorship, the High Priesthood, the ‘reins of power’ of the multicultural Empire of HIS day….shades of a mixed-race Leader, and a corrupt Edomite Rahm Emmanuel coalition besieging the ‘God’s Israel’ [ Gal. 6:16] of today….)
In short, are not the source documents of the NT to be believed, when they speak ‘in situ’ about the ‘world’ the Apostles knew and which Christ circled round with an even greater delimiter; ['I am come ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel'] rather than the utterly foolish presumption that by saying ‘the world,’ the Scripture writers meant Togo and Tobago in the Pacific Ocean, let alone non-White Chinamen, or the Aztecs? Why not take the Scripture LITERALLY, (as Reformation scholars always say they do) and admit that the ‘world’ of Jesus’ and the Apostle’s days, was confined to the known world of the Roman Empire’s dominions? Based on the eventual turning away from Asia that St. Paul was directed to do by the H.S., mentioned in Acts, why not look where Christendom eventually ‘set up shop,’ as it were- the boundaries of the Caucasus mountains and the Pillars of Hercules in the East and in the West, and the North Sea, and the ‘sea of the Sahara’ in the North and South?
Why not say that, if the Scripture says that the YHWH God of the OT, so concerned with the racial particularity and non-miscegenated stance of HIS People [shades of Matt. 1:21] in the OLD, was any LESS concerned with the racial particularity and non-miscegenated stance of HIS People [shades of Matt. 1:21!!!] in the NEW?
Therefore, to conjoin Christ’s call ONLY to a certain Ethnic people while He was on Earth, [the 'lost sheep of the House of Israel'] and the ‘go ye unto ALL nations’ [Ethne] of the “Great Commission,” – which never rescinded His earlier statement- and why should it?- God is ‘not a man, that HE changeth His mind….) along with the ‘Apostle to the [sic] Gentiles’ call to only Europe- is not ludicrous, but is actually far more Biblical.
(Is not every verse in the AV/KJV that uses this word ‘Greek’ is AT ALL TIMES referring to the HELLENES- i.e., Racially, Particularist Ethnically WHITE Greeks, and Greek-speaking WHITE Romans, rather than just the more ‘generic’ [sic] Goyim, or ‘Gentiles’ which the AV erroneously uses?- cf. Strongs #1672)
Would it not be EASIER, and more CONSISTENTLY SCRIPTURAL, then, if we see this ‘Judean and Hellene’ conjunction, as one and the same RACIAL people, divided, say (oh I don’t know….) by a Babylonian Captivity of some seven hundred years prior, which just HAPPENS to coincide roughly with the movement of a large number of the Indo-European tribes from ‘somewhere’ to just NORTH of the Caucasus mountains?!?!?
While (coincidentally) the ten ‘northern tribes’ of the Biblical 70-plus years of Captivity were situated just SOUTH of the same Caucasus mountains? Finally, why is it, that all Whites named by ONE name, if you go back far enough? Are we not all called, (whether Scot, Norse, German, or Celt) “Caucasians”?
Surely this is for a REASON?
JPC is very close to the mark, when he says: “I’ve always seen Gal 3:28 as a rebuke of a Pharisaical notion of superiority.” With an emphatic emphasis on the term, PHARASAICAL, please. When one notes that Josephus snidely dismisses the ‘true b’nai b’rith’ status of the race-mixing Edomites, (of whom Herod and the High Priest of Christ’s age were ‘blood brothers’) in his writings, you begin to understand the ‘hidden truth’ that has been there all along, that we who are now ‘co-heirs with Christ’ who come from Europe, have LONG forgotten.
Christ repudiated BOTH the racial pretensions of ‘those who say they are Jews and are not’ [Rev. 2:8,9] as well as their non-Biblical, non-HEBRAIC ‘traditions of the Elders’ – which were nothing more than the ‘wall of separation’ that the non-Elect Edomites had raised around THEMSELVES: when, in actuality, it was the ‘racial superiority’ of the White/Hebraic ‘pure Judeans’ such as the Galileans (the 12 and Christ himself, for instance) that was truly the ‘apple of YHWH’s eye’- who were, by their faithfulness, to be ‘seated on Twelve Thrones’ judging Angels’ after all was said and done.
Therefore, I believe it is in THIS light that we can now re-read Mr. Henry:
“Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. We ought to be in a special manner concerned for the spiritual good of our relations, our brethren and kinsmen. To them we lie under special engagements, and we have more opportunity of doing good to them; and concerning them, and our usefulness to them, we must in a special manner give account.” (Matthew Henry on Romans 9:3)
Friar John, I must disagree with you.
Black men and Yellow men are men too — not beasts. God in His wisdom, knowing the depravity of men, has thankfully made inter-species breeding impossible (without external genetic manipulation). Hence, no half-mancow, mansheep, mandog etc wander around.
Was Paul not sent to the nations? Was the Great Commission not given to the nations? Was an Ethiopian not granted salvation? (Yes, I know he need not have been black, but he was returning to a nation with black people in it).
That being said, I do not agree with miscegenation.
Marlon- I did not call those not of Adam’s race, ‘beasts’ YOU DID.
I merely pointed out that, in the OT, as well as in the NT, there is a “Family” to which the Almighty has ‘set his seal.’ YOu mention the Ethiopian. DO you mean the one in the Chariot reading Isaiah?
Ah, but look at the specifics, man! He was a EUNUCH. His conversion was not harmful or contrary to the premise that Christ ‘came only for the Lost Sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL’, for he could never engender ‘seed’ or miscegenate the race; and, as a eunuch, he was already an outcast- oh, and he was a SLAVE.
So, while individual men of other races can certainly come into the Kingdom, that does not make them a member of the “Tribe,” anymore than the ‘mixed multitude’ that accompanied the Israelites out of Bondage. There is NO MENTION that he (the Eunuch) brought the Gospel back to sub-Saharan Africa (and, if he did, he would have had to be a Bishop or an Evangelist, which is also NOT mentioned in the text).
I don’t get you Evangelical’s fear of the ELECTING Nature of the Gospel!? You talk about Predestination of Calvin, uphold the WCF, etc. and yet refuse (and not on biblical grounds, but merely according to an apostate unitarian universalist religious American Democratic mindset only) the possibility that God may have ELECTED a RACE for SALVATION – which is predicated on the fact of Christ’s UNIQUE Incarnation. Jesus bar Joseph is NOT an ‘Everyman’ that can morph his flesh like the Martian in Ray Bradbury’s ‘The Martian Chronicles’- finally dying in a frenzy of wish fulfillment of a polyglot mass of deluded humanity. No, Christ is of ONE ETHNOS- and we already KNOW that it is not a “Jewish” one! [Rev. 2:8,9] Why is that so much more ['how much more? as St. Paul says] EVIL, or ‘impossible’ than merely ‘electing 144,000′ as it were.
And, Marlon, if you do not agree with the construct of Miscegenation, WHY IS IT, then, that ALL the churches that hold to your Universalist Racial paradigm, are ALSO THOSE that hold to the ‘liberal’ use of Gal. 3:28, and, having pressed for inter-racial marriage in 1967 via Loving and the State of VA, are now the SAME Minds that are pressing for ‘gay marriage’?
I believe you have not thought these things through…..
I have misread you and you have misread me. I apologize.
I have no problem with whites being chosen. I thought you were saying salvation was only for whites.
Indeed, I expect a politically correct version of the Word to come soon – without the racist, sexist, genderist, and whatever new “crimes” that society may decide on.
Oh, and for the record, these posts of Mr. Cronkite are superb. I only wish we had had HIM, instead of Walter, on the evening news for the last forty years……
In a topic in the New Testament, there is the case of a man carrying scores of devils,
& Christ, getting the devils in to a herd of pigs, who immediately kill themselves.
Is not amazing that a human being is able to carry devils for so many years where as
animals do not accept it. In those days pigs were considered one of the dirtiest
animals because they were put into toilets to eat mankind’s waste.
Now coming back to the incident itself, the reality is that pigs. the dirtiest of all animals refused to accept any alien( in this case unclean) spirits into them & hence killed themselves. Fr John think truthfully , who would GOD like to be at his side, an unclean man or that pigs. Now please don’t tell me ‘It is because those pigs were white
in color”. Common sense tells me GOD does not distinguish between colors, but does distinguish between individuals.