Alienists will at first scoff at what I’m about to say here. Their initial reaction will no doubt be to allege we are saying White people somehow need the gospel less. So we will dispense with that silly cavil from the outset. We are in fact saying the exact opposite — that the means of God’s grace are just that — grace. And if they retain the slightest regard for truth they will, at length, see that. And if not, they will only have proven their commitment to PC ideology impervious to Christian truth.
Chapter 24, Of Marriage and Divorce, confronts us directly with an ethnically-based model of marriage. Yes, Section 1 condemns bestiality, pedophilia, sodomy, polygamy, and polyandry. And though these parameters apply to men of all nations, Christian marriage has proven a lighter yoke to some than others. In a foregoing portion of this study we noted the normative pattern of marriage among African peoples: whether past or present, the Black family structure proves matriarchal to such extreme extent that they lack any concept of marriage and fatherhood as the confession knows them. Even after hundreds of years of Christianization. The only prolonged and significant exception came under the circumstance of slavery to White Christians, wherein Christian family structure was imposed upon the African from without. And the moral capital with which that paternalism imbued them carried up through the Jim Crow era.
But from the 1930s up to 1960, coordinate with civil rights agitation, that structure faltered. This trend, which by 1960 found one third of Black households led by single mothers, was seized on by Daniel Moynihan’s groundbreaking report The Negro Family, which became the centerpiece study for Johnson’s Great Society. Having then abolished the vestiges of the old paternalism, ‘civil rights’ unleashed their native impulses. The total collapse of the Black family which immediately followed was initially understood by all to be a disaster, but no longer. By and large, the Black community conceives it not as a collapse, but as the return of their natural family structure — a central matriarch rearing the children of several different men, usually with the help of her brother, who acts as the primary father figure in the lives of the children. Yes, Christianized Blacks today corporately conclude, “Marriage is for white people.” Because the African conception of marriage bears so little resemblance to marriage in the Christian sense.
The longer I lived there, the more I understood: it became blindingly obvious that the Senegalese are not the same as us. The truths we hold to be self-evident are not evident to the Senegalese. How could they be? Their reality is totally different. You can’t understand anything in Senegal using American terms.
Take something as basic as family. Family was a few hundred people, extending out to second and third cousins. All the men in one generation were called “father.” . . . Love and friendship in marriage were Western ideas. Fidelity was not a thing.
To the eyes of White Christians, Blacks — even when Christians — generally do not live in families at all, but in what can only be called herds.
By contrast, the Mestizo or Indian has tended strongly to marriage. But even inside a Christian context, his libidinous tendencies remain notorious. According to the data, few Mexican marriages are monogamous. Infidelity is, and always has been, the norm for them.
As of 2014 the data on pedophilia finds a whopping 7 out of every 10 Mexican children to be molested. Mind you, that’s aside from the fact that the age of consent in Mexico is twelve. Taking that into account, the real figure, by reasonable reckoning, is closer to 100%! Which surpasses even the 60% molestation figures among Blacks in America.
Am I pointing out the sin of particular communities? Yes, but that is not the primary point here. The point is that by every measure, the sexuality of Black and Brown communities (with Christian churches on every corner) is unbound both outside and inside family. Meaning, their relationship to and conception of family proves quite different from ours; and more importantly, from Christian norms.
Contrary to Hollywood portrayal, Whites are statistically the least inclined to every manifestation of LGBT perversion.
But how could any of this be if the Christian faith, as the Alienists insist, levels the sinfulness of all peoples? By that question we do not mean to ask how individuals can vary, but specifically, how ethnic groups can vary in such decisive ways? Beyond the fact, however, of post-Christian Whites retaining more affinity for the Christian family structure than Christians of other ethnicities, is the foregoing matter of how pre-Christian European tribes were found to have such high levels of conformity to the Christian model. For writing prior to AD 97, Tacitus tells us:
Their marriage code, however, is strict, and no feature of their morality deserves higher praise. They are almost unique among barbarians in being content with one wife apiece. . . .
Clandestine loveletters are unknown to men and women alike. Adultery is extremely rare, considering the size of the population. . . . They have no mercy on a wife who prostitutes her chastity. Neither beauty, youth, nor wealth can find her another husband. No one in Germany finds vice amusing, or calls it ‘up-to-date’ to seduce and be seduced. Even better is the practice of those states in which only virgins may marry, so that a woman who has once been a bride has finished with all such hopes and aspirations. She takes one husband, just as she has one body and one life. Her thoughts must not stray beyond him or her desires survive him. And even that husband she must love not for himself, but as an embodiment of the married state. To restrict the number of children, or to kill any of those born after the heir, is considered wicked. Good morality is more effective in Germany than good laws are elsewhere.
Though Tacitus was come of Rome where marriage laws had grown decadent in the age of empire, historians agree that throughout the days of the Roman Republic they held similar standards to the Germanians. Which explains why Tacitus would appraise Germanic marriage and family structure so highly.
Now, this may be, as some have surmised, on account of the Twelve Tables (really, ten rubrics and two supplements) of Roman law being the fruit of Israelite influence circa 450 BC. But if so, Roman historiography knows nothing of that influence either way. And such an explanation would be irrelevant to the question of why the Romans would gravitate to said law when the Canaanites, who were in closer proximity to Israel for duration, did not. Said theory certainly does not account for pre-Christian Germany having held to like convictions. Whether by means of Israelite influence or the bardic vestiges of Jupiter’s (possibly Japheth’s) teaching, the issue boils down to God’s sovereign and unequal election of nations back of those means.
All of which is to say that Christian missionaries to the nations have not found all on equal footing with respect to the institutions of marriage and family. We find some peoples’ native convictions closer to conformity with the Christian way of life. And this, by God’s grace, has facilitated conversion mightily.
It bears persistent effect in the expression of Christianity among different ethnicities still. While White Alienists mock at these truths, the ethnicities on whose behalf they rage tend to agree with us. And they actually resent those White Alienists pretending to see no difference between the peoples and their cultures.
What an awkward position for them.
Section 2 says, among other things, “Marriage was ordained … for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.” (WCF 24:2)
This assertion raises the question: how is illegitimacy defined? A relevant text behind this issue is Deuteronomy 23:2, which states that “a bastard” shall not enter the assembly of the Lord. That word bastard is in the Masoretic Text mamzer, and among the Latin texts it has been alternately rendered nothus (a latinization of the Greek word, nothos), bastardus, and adulterinus (the latter connecting it directly to the seventh commandment contra adultery). Each of these have meanings in common but the one conceptual constant between them is admixture, which is variously expressed in their definitions as “counterfeit, alloyed, mixed-race, mongrel.”
So much so that when Luther first translated the Scripture into German he chose the word mischling for it.1 And mischling has only one definition – literally, a mixling, one of mixed race, a mongrel.
Later German translations rendered it bastarde and French translations used bâtard, both of which the English reader will recognize as cognate of our word in the Genevan and King James translations — bastard. This word is understood narrowly today as denoting a child born out of wedlock, but its meaning at the time of the Reformation translations was more robust. For example, we find Webster’s 1828 Dictionary retains an adjectival definition in keeping with all the foregoing translations: “Spurious; not genuine; false; supposititious; adulterate.” Which agrees in essence with the Oxford Dictionary: “(of a thing) no longer in its pure or original form; debased.”
All of which Alienists summarily dismiss as stilted, strained, or unclear. Archaic and adjectival definitions of bastard aside, they insist that if the word mamzer really meant ‘mongrel’, our English translators would have rendered it so.
But Zechariah 9:6 dispels all controversy. It reads in the New American Standard Bible (renowned for its accuracy in word-for-word translation): “And a mongrel race will dwell in Ashdod, And I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.”
The word there rendered ‘a mongrel race’ is the same term used in Deuteronomy 23:2 — mamzer/bastard.
The exact same.
And it is no fluke. The ESV (also praised for accuracy) renders it “a mixed people,” and virtually all other translations use some permutation of the same sentiment in that text.
Obviously, the translators are agreed on the meaning of this word, but have regularly opted to render it differently in these two passages. In the descriptive passage (Zech. 9:6) they use the plain definition, but in the prescriptive passage (Deut. 23:2) they have opted for more opaque terminology. Because the burden of the plain meaning, in terms of prescription, is against miscegenation.
But the Alienist may point out that the LXX uses the phrase ek pornes (the latter word being derived from porne), which is in English translations thereof typically rendered “[child] of a harlot”. Which may be the strongest case also for using the vague phrase “of illegitimate birth.”
But these definitions do not encapsulate its full meaning. Its second definition is “any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, whether for gain or for lust.” The breadth of which would cover all forms of sexual perversion and would explain why some translators opt for “one born of fornication,” “sexual immorality,” or “unchastity.”
But the breadth of this term, then, simply makes it a catch-all for one born of intercourse outside the legal norms of inheritance. And that covers miscegenation as much as any other form of infidelity.
And it isn’t as if latching onto the word porne to the exclusion of all others, and then limiting that term to its most narrow definition, ameliorates the discriminatory aspect of it anyway. After all, banning from citizenship children born out of wedlock, to a harlot, of incest, or of heretic or heathen parentage is, in fact, a much more severe set of prohibitions, imposing much greater hardship than the simple maintenance of ethnonational distinction.
So it is that no Alienist is willing to eat the soup he’s prepared for himself on this matter. After fighting with every arbitrary assertion, caveat, and aside he can muster against the plain reading here, none push for the application of the alternatives being asserted. For by fighting against the Kinist view, the alternative expels virtually all minorities anyway.
Oops. That’s embarrassing.
Read Part 10
- The University of Michigan has a searchable version of Luther’s German Bible, which shows Deut. 23:2 and Zech. 9:6 as the two instances of mischling for mamzer. ↩