Miscegenation, sanctification, imperatives, and principles

FYI: Miscegenation = interracial breeding and/or marriage.

There’s been some good discussion over at Cane’s on miscegenation (mixed race marriage/interbreeding) in Christian Nationalism versus Zombie Nationalism and Nothing Jew under the Sun. Here’s one of the main thrusts:

In case my father ever reads this I should address the stumbling block put before us by Progressives who are sexually immoral and revilers and swindlers. It seems that every-other piece of media produced (not to mention the lives of our celebrities in sports and entertainment) sells the idea of interracial sex (especially of the black man and white woman variety) as if it were the pinnacle of human achievement.

We ought to recognize that it is a taunt aimed at take our minds off the real and focus on the worldly. It is false doctrine, a corrupt idol meant to stand in the place of the reality of unity in Christ, but which actually has nothing to do with the spirit and is full of spite. Progressives live according to the flesh, and they are portraying what should not be for others who live according to the flesh. It hits a lot of notes for them:

  • It flouts the spirit of the law of God to keep separate those things that ought not be brought together (though their standard is wrong because it is old)
  • It offends people who they hate and
  • It elicits revelry from other sexually immoral revilers and swindlers

Perhaps what I’m describing is difficult to comprehend… An analogy to the Progressive and materialist idol of interracial sex and marriage would be cannibalism. Jesus said at the Last Supper that this bread is His body and this wine is His blood, and we are to eat and drink it as if it were so[1]. The material idolatry of that reality is cannibalism. Have you noticed how rampant vampires, werewolves, zombies and other cannibals are these days? How many of those pieces of media feature interracial sex? All of them?

So if anyone is not in Christ and still of the flesh and the world and still blind to the truth: Do not partake in the eucharist, do not eat people, and do not have have sex with someone of another race.

Cane in part likes to write cryptically sometimes, which I understand because it’s fun to play around with wording to add multiple layers to a statement. However, the main thrust of his post is understanding the concept of sanctification (which I commented as TL;DR).

I talked about sanctification before in the leadership of a husband. Paul uses the word in Ephesians 5 to reference the sanctification role that Christ plays with the Church. The word literally means to “set apart” which to us means “becoming holy.” This is a constant theme throughout the Scriptures. The Jews and the surrounding culture are one example of sanctification (don’t marry foreign women, take foreign idols, etc.). The priesthood are another example. Jesus and the Church are yet another example.

Because we live in a culture that is inundated with liberalism and progressivism, it’s easy for the Church to become compromised by the culture. Look no further than how feminism has infected and disrupted the Church through divorce, broken families, inverted headship and submission, and husbands being slaves to a wife’s feelings with the power of Church backing.

Miscegenation is an interesting topic because of how progressives hold it up as an idol. Many people when they hear of it think of it as a good thing. The other crowd when they hear of it thinks that it is a a bad thing. Both of these are completely wrong.

The very nature of “good” and “bad” here is of supreme importance. If you default to either you have already been washed and indoctrinated by cultural mores. By claiming “good” or “bad” to something, we assert that there is a moral principle or imperative that is being violated. Miscegenation can only be “good” if it is “moral.” This is how something relatively innocuous is elevated to idol status. (Although most white liberals ironically don’t like it — good for you but not for me).

Goodness and therefore morality are something that is determined by God. It is neither “good” nor “moral” to marry interracially. How do we know this? The Scriptures give us those principles.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be [j]bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with [k]Belial, or [l]what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 17 “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. 18 “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.

The principle that the Scriptures gives us regarding “miscegenation” is that of believers and unbelievers. All who are in Christ are of the same mind, body, and spirit. Therefore, what actually is “good” and “moral” is to marry a believer instead of unbeliever.

The one exception from 1 Corinthians 7 is that a believer should stay with an unbeliever post-marriage convert if the unbeliever consents to live with them. Right there we get another example of sanctification.

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not [f]divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

We can see that it’s Paul saying this (not the Lord), but the example he gives is compelling. If there is unity in the marriage (the unbeliever consents to live), the believer should agree. The influence of Christ in the believers life is a sanctifying presence, which can win their unbelieving spouse and children to the Lord.

It also follows that miscegenation from a worldly perspective is a deceptive false idol based on human ideas of what is good and bad. In reference to the Scriptures, it is simply one thing that falls under a believer’s freedom. Miscegenation is one example, but it one that is so ingrained in our culture that we take it for granted and don’t question it.

It’s very easy for Christians to get caught up in “imperatives” such as good or bad, which nullify the believer’s freedom. In doing so, they revert to Pharisaical legalism, which much of modern Christianity (or should I say churchianity) is embroiled in. Don’t do this. Do this. Don’t do that. Do that. This is not unlike liberalism, feminism, and progressivism which all claim a moral high ground for determining what is good and bad while flaunting their own holiness in your face.

We are to be prudent about those who are immature and weaker in the faith (1 Cor 8, 1 Cor 10). Likewise, things such as miscegenation are similar. It may be wise/prudent/discerning to avoid being in an interracial marriage depending on circumstances. It may be wise/prudent/discerning to be in an interracial marriage depending on circumstances. However, our principles must first and foremost be built on a good foundation. And that foundation is Christ.

It is my observation that most Christians live by both indicative and imperative, but have them all jumbled up which makes for no principles; no foundation. (“Status-signaling” is living by false indicatives.) It is easy then for the ungodly to undermine the principles and also slip false indicatives and imperatives into our minds just as idols were smuggled, and rationalized into, the OT Temples.

Cane summarizes in his post to good effect.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Miscegenation, sanctification, imperatives, and principles

  1. Pingback: Miscegenation, sanctification, imperatives, and principles – Manosphere.org

  2. John says:

    Maybe you suckers ought to try reading THE LAW OF GOD before you pontificate on matters.

  3. Jacob says:

    Miscegenation is a ‘mis-‘ word used to denote blanket incorrectness – eg mistake, misuse, misinformed. Sounds like your thesis here is that miscegenation is right when it’s not idolatrous, and only wrong when it is. In what situation/s would race be a measure of incorrectness between Christians (who have no other god but God) who want to marry?

  4. @ Jacob

    Sounds like your thesis here is that miscegenation is right when it’s not idolatrous, and only wrong when it is. In what situation/s would race be a measure of incorrectness between Christians (who have no other god but God) who want to marry?

    Not at all. My point is that it’s neither right or wrong. There’s no moral value assigned to it because it’s covered within a believers freedom. Making it a moral right or wrong (like progressives and their opponents do) is a human invention. Imparting moral value to it is making it an idol.

    What actually matters is if both are believers. In terms of miscegenation and the choice, it would be up to the believer’s discernment/wisdom/prudence.

  5. Don Quixote says:

    TIL a new word; ‘miscegenation’. I previously understood this as exogamy. I assume it’s the same thing…?
    I live in Australia, and a lot of aussie [anglo-saxon] guys marry asian girls. Many [most?] of these marriages work really well. In almost every family you will find these marriages. In the church I previously attended there were many such couples and also in my family there are some. I like to think it sends a strong message to the local ladies to improve, but I am dreaming.
    Most common are the Anglo/Indian, Anglo/Viet, Anglo/Philippino, Anglo/Polynesian. After a few generations Australia will look very different. I nearly forgot Anglo/Chinese.

  6. Caspar Reyes says:

    Miscegenation is from the Latin miscere (to mix) + genation (fabrication)

    All things may be lawful but not all are wise or helpful.

  7. @ Caspar Reyes

    All things may be lawful but not all are wise or helpful.

    Yup, although I would contend that it works both ways in certain circumstances.

    The key being, of course, that the marriage is based on Christ.

  8. @ Don Quixote

    Yeah, there’s a bunch of different terms for it. Cane used miscegenation, so I went with that one.

    As long as Christ is the center, and both are cultivating fruits of the Spirit and roles and responsibilities in marriage it’s great.

  9. TheLdnQuaestor says:

    This was played out in Acts 10:14-15 Peter was going through this, choosing a believer is key whether another race or not, first and foremost lets make sure they are part of the Body of Christ.

    14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
    15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

    Also remember what happened to Miriam, when she spoke of Moses non-Israelite wife Numbers 12: “Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite” – God’s reaction – “9 The anger of the Lord burned against them, and he left them.10 When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous[a]—it became as white as snow. ”

    With the reduced numbers in the body of Christ, one can not be so picky anymore….

  10. @ TheLdnQuaestor

    Yep. Good points on Peter and unclean/clean in Acts.

    The Moses/Miram/Aaron case is interesting. What is probably likely is that the Cushite wife converted to Judaism, and that they were discriminating against her. A similar case would be Rahab who was honored by Joshua and Israel for hiding the spies and eventually would be in the line of David and Jesus.

    However, that’s just an educated guess because we don’t have much detail from the story.

  11. Elspeth says:

    As parents who have encountered a bit of resistance to the fact that we have not discouraged our daughters from considering interest from men of other races, I appreciate the reminder that Christianity is a tribe of its own based on the blood of the Lamb.

    And of course, the focus on what we can see (another tenet that is cautioned against in Christianity) ignores the complexities of ethnicity in the first place.

    We recently saw a video of my 92-year old GMIL recounting what she told a nurse at her new doctor, when asked her ethnic background: “Well, I got black, white, and Cherokee. Which one you want me to use?”

    Her mother was black/NA, father was white. Stepfather was black so that’s how she identified. She married and had 10 children ranging from very fair to very dark. Depending which one of them you encountered, you could easily make the mistake of thinking they were something other than black, and you wouldn’t necessarily be wrong.

    There are certainly times when it must be addressed or considered as a matter of prudence, but the beauty of the centrality of Christ is that it becomes a secondary consideration. Or at the very least, it need not be the determining factor.

  12. @ Elspeth

    It’s not something that a lot of pastors really address, and most Christians aren’t mature enough in Christ to understand the principles in Scripture sadly.

    My extended family is almost all interracial marriages, and I’ve never seen a comment or even look to where someone thought it was strange. It just is. Of course, some are Christian and some are not Christian so there are issues unfortunately on that end of things.

    Alternatively, it’s easy for Churches to fall prey to the idol of ‘diversity’ in whatever context that manifests because of the influence of the culture.

  13. Robin Munn says:

    I often see Vox Day posting news stories in which a young woman (usually white in the stories VD chooses to post) has been assaulted, robbed, or murdered by her “lover” of another race (usually black in the stories VD chooses to post). I put “lover” in scare quotes because of course, there is nothing loving in the behavior shown in those stories. What Vox Day never (AFAICT) addresses is the difference between race and culture. Race is physical and is based on your particular mix of DNA. Have this mix, you’ll look “white”. This other mix, and you’ll look “black”. This influences many things, including both physical strength and mental agility — yet culture trumps DNA by miles.

    Here’s a thought experiment. Take two people from the same ethnic group; have one grow up in an inner-city slum, learning the values of thuggery from those around him; and have the other one grow up as the son of hard-working immigrant parents, who went through the difficult process of legal immigration because they wanted their son to have a better life, and who went on to teach those same values of hard work to their son. Now let’s say the first man has an IQ of 110, and the second man an IQ of 90. Which one is likely to be more successful in life in the long run? Which one is likely to turn out to be the kind of man you’d be proud to let your daughter date? (Assuming, of course, that he was a Christian). The first man might overcome the evil values that he was taught as a teen, and turn to Christ — some do. But sadly, that’s not the way to bet.

    When God warned Israel against intermarrying with the Canaanites, (e.g., in Deuteronomy 7), He also said why: because the idols the Canaanites worshiped were abominations, and intermarriage would lead Israel astray into worshiping those abominable idols as well. (And indeed, that’s what happened when most of Israel disobeyed God and intermarried with the Canaanites anyway). Then in Deuteronomy 23, God said that anyone “born of a forbidden union” (marriage with a Canaanite would certainly count, given that God had specifically forbidden intermarriage with the Canaanites and other nations living in the Promised Land at the time) was not to enter the assembly of the Lord for ten generations from the forbidden union. The Ammonites and Moabites were also forbidden: any descendants of such a union would be excluded from the assembly for ten generations. But the Edomites and Egyptians did not fall under the same category. They were not Israelites, but it seems that Israelites were not forbidden to marry Edomites and Egyptians — because anyone born of such a union could enter the assembly in the third generation. The Edomites were close relatives, so if one assumes that God cared about race then that seems to make sense… but the Egyptians make no sense at all if it was race God cared about. But if it was one’s actions that God cared about more than one’s genes, then His commands make sense — because in the case of the Egyptians, He says “You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.”

    This is getting too long for a comment. I’ll cut myself off here, because if I let myself I could talk about this issue for hours.

  14. @ Robin Munn

    Very interesting stuff, particularly about the Edomites and Egyptians.

    Anyway, the whole point about Cane’s post and mine is sanctification — to be set apart in Christ.

    It’s crazy how things always turn to race or culture, if an example is used about race or culture.

  15. SirHamster says:

    … because anyone born of such a union could enter the assembly in the third generation.

    Noticed something new about the 3rd generation aspect.

    My parents are immigrants to America, and I have decided I will give a strong preference to finding a same ethnic wife – not so much for personal preference, but because I think that will make it easier for her to honor my parents and their foreign culture. They are citizens, but are un-American in culture and that will not change.

    Being far more Americanized, I think my children should feel free to marry any strong Christian they find in America … and they will be the 3rd generation.

    From a cultural point of view: 1st gen is alien, 2nd gen is adapted, and 3rd gen can be native-compatible.

  16. Pingback: The cult of diversity | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s