After the audio of Donald Sterling, owner of the L.A. Clippers, was released to the public, a lot of people had a lot to say, but one particular response caught my eye. Rapper Meek Mill tweeted, “Donald sterling is the definition of racism …. He could b your judge…. Your doctor…..you teacher etc.”

While his words could incite paranoia, they’re also true. Men and women with views like Donald Sterling’s could be in the courtrooms, doctor’s office, classrooms and even in our pews.

The Proof is in the Pudding

Don’t think for one second that believers that think like Sterling don’t exist.

When I was in college, I entered the office of an older white gentleman who had mentored me, in a sense, and had done some significant cross-cultural things to advance a movement of Reformed blacks. He was also highly esteemed in our circles. From time to time, we talked about my desire to be married, and he encouraged me to pursue it.

20140429.membership

Become a member of Christ and Pop Culture!

However, I had a problem. I was Reformed and black living as a minority immersed in Anglo culture. Because the majority of the women I was surrounded by were white, naturally, some of the relationships I pursued were interracial. I found myself running into the roadblocks of disapproving parents who didn’t want me marrying their daughters.

When I expressed my frustration to the gentleman, he asked how my family would feel about my marrying interracially. I revealed how the gospel had done a marvelous work in my family’s heart regarding this issue. He pointed out that interracial marriage was hard and should therefore be avoided.

The conversation ended awkwardly. I left his office and never returned. Years later, he admitted to a group of men that he could not bear the thought of one of his daughters marrying a black man. This church leader was an incognito racist.

Being against interracial marriage is simply a sign of a much deeper issue. They reject the sufficiency of God’s standards for marriage (between two believers of the opposite sex), the intrinsic worth of the individual they’re opposing, and ultimately the oneness of all ethnicities in Christ.

Don’t Let Your ‘Sterling’ Die a Racist

When a pastor is well aware that some of his congregants and even leaders are racists with views that deny the intrinsic worth of a particular ethnicity and the implications of said worth, I struggle. I struggle to understand how this is acceptable. Some pastors and leaders, it seems, would rather wait for certain members to die before they challenge, rebuke, and discipline them. These same pastors radically oppose same-sex marriage and abortion.

On the surface, those cultural issues seem to be more urgent, since we no longer live during the slave era or Jim Crow. They deny God’s original intent for mankind and our intrinsic worth as humans, a worth that sets us apart from the rest of creation. But racism does too.

Same-sex marriage leads to a distortion of the family. Legalized abortion leads to murder and infanticide. But racism leads to a habitual disobedience of the second greatest commandment (love your neighbor as yourself) and to numerous systemic evils.

Habitual racism may reveal that one’s ultimate allegiance is not to the household of faith and the kingdom of God, but to culture and heritage. The consequences are frightening. Failure to confront him or her could lead to their eternal torment, since this may not be simply a single area of struggle for that individual, but at the heart of their understanding of the gospel.

A Safe Place for Racists

I want the church to be a safe place for racists, because I want the church to be a safe place for sinners. The church should be a place that sinners can be honest about their struggles with sin, even racism, not a place that drives them into hiding. But the church fails to be a safe place for racists when it fails to call them to repentance. In the same way that churches during the Jim Crow era failed to be “safe” when they endorsed and approved the unjust laws of the time, when the church stops challenging its members and leadership in areas of sin, it becomes a very dangerous place.

I’m pleading with pastors to simply challenge your flock. Preach against racism when the text addresses it and rebuke racism in love when it rears its ugly head. Don’t knowingly let a member of your church die a habitual racist. Love them by preaching the intrinsic worth of all men and the implications of said worth.

Love one another by preaching the Gospel and all the implications of God revealing himself to mankind in Jesus. He purchased people for himself and he’s intentionally building his church with people from every nation, tribe and tongue. He calls us to unity, uniting us first to himself and then one another. We have unity because of Christ.

When we reject our brother or sister on any level based on the color of their skin, we reject the work of Christ and it’s implications. Christian, don’t leave your brother or sister in their sin. Restore them in a spirit of gentleness.

Avatar for Phillip Holmes

Phillip Holmes

Phillip Holmes is co-founder and vice president of the Reformed African American Network. He is currently a Master-of-Divinity student at Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson.
WWW Twitter

58 Comments

  1. “Some pastors and leaders, it seems, would rather wait for certain members to die before they challenge, rebuke, and discipline them.”

    Very illuminating. Praise God for what your write. I sense all to often leaders are content to let someone stay in their position on something hoping they’ll die or go away.

    1. We have had to deal pretty directly with a case of “Kinism” in our congregation. Our elders told the one holding it to repent and to stop teaching such in our congregation. The teaching ceased. I hope the repentence occurred, too, but I’m not sure.

  2. As a Christian man married to a man, I find your moral certitude about the sinfulness of both homosexuality and racism to be remarkably ironic. Perhaps if you would like others to be less tolerant of racism, you could show them the way by being less heterosexist.

    2. @David S

      I wouldn’t be so self-righteous considering how rampant racism is among White homosexuals.

      A great example was the aftermath of the vote for Prop. 8, which passed with overwhelmingly support from Black people. Suddenly, “tolerant” White homosexuals began subjecting Black people to racist hate speech worthy of the KKK.

      You can read the details in this article, “”N***ers Better Not Come to West Hollywood”:

      http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2008/11/n.html

      If not for the fear of being labeled “homophobic,” White homosexual racists would suffer the same backlash Don Sterling has received.

    3. Your argument is fallacious. The civil rights movement and the Church’s response to it is in no way applicable to the current debate on marriage. In the former case, Blacks were not the sinful party but were sinned against. We don’t tolerate racism because God does not, the same is true of homosexuality. The Church is not, by and large, the sinner here, but those demanding that the living body of Christ declare their sin to be righteous. This is the issue, it has nothing to do with civil rights.

    4. Ben,
      While I agree that the past and continuing struggles of people of color are different than those of people who are gay, there are important similarities. The church uses scripture and tradition to stigmatize and marginalize both groups.

      Conservative theology says that being gay is a pathology and that therefore gay relationships – and the people in them – are inferior and immoral.

      The religious objection to gay marriage is identical to the religious objection to interracial marriage. The author endorses the former but complains about the latter. Why? Because he has a sincerely held belief that gay marriage is sinful. Still, he denounces those who have a sincerely held belief that interracial marriage is sinful.

      Just like people of color, people who are gay are fully human and have worth and dignity. The covenant relationships of people who are gay are no more inherently sinful than interracial relationships.

      I think a good measure of the great commandment is in order here.

    5. Fred,

      I think people who are both black and gay would disagree with you. You’re going to have a really tough time trying to smear the gay community with a racist brush.

      The anger towards African American churches in the wake of prop 8 stemmed from their active role in marginalizing a despised minority. There isn’t intolerance for black people in the gay community at large; there’s only intolerance for those who refuse to take their boot off of our necks.

    6. I find it hard to believe that one can call himself a Christian man who is married to another man. You can’t accept one part of the word of god and say the other parts don’t apply to you. The bible says to deny one’s self and take up his cross and walk with Jesus. Not our will but his be done

    7. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be truly a Christian and living in a homosexual relationship!!!! The Bible condemns it!!!!!!!!!!

    8. @David S

      You write:

      “Conservative theology says that being gay is a pathology and that therefore gay relationships – and the people in them – are inferior and immoral.”

      >> Orthodox theology holds to the biblical position (backed by 2,000 years of church interpretation) that homosexual sex of any kind is sinful and against God’s created order. So yes, it regards it as immoral, but it’s a caricature to claim that orthodox believers and theologians regard homosexual individuals as inferior. They are like all people, men and women made in God’s image, yet deeply marred by sin and in need of redemption. This is the very reason why Christ was made a curse for us, so that he could redeem us, cleanse us and begin the Spirit’s work of sanctifying us.

      “The religious objection to gay marriage is identical to the religious objection to interracial marriage. The author endorses the former but complains about the latter. Why? Because he has a sincerely held belief that gay marriage is sinful. Still, he denounces those who have a sincerely held belief that interracial marriage is sinful.”

      >> This is logically false. Either you’ve failed to grasp the nature of the arguments being made or you are intentionally trying to obscure the issues at hand. The religious objection to interracial marriage has no biblical support. There is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ, all men and women (especially believers who grasp the power of redemption) are free to enter into marriage relationships regardless of race. Hence why the Bible *promotes* the interracial marriage of Ruth and Boaz and weaves this into the tapestry of redemption, as ancestors of Jesus. No where does the bible condone fornication, adultery or any sex outside of marriage, which God ordained and the bible defines as fundamentally between one man and woman, according to the created order.

      When a man and woman of two different races marry, they are celebrating their common humanity and complementarity. When believers enter into interracial marriage, they accentuate this even further by imaging forth the picture of Christ and the church, especially in the way the gospel has empowered their love regardless of race.

      “The covenant relationships of people who are gay are no more inherently sinful than interracial relationships.”

      >> This comment is built upon a false premise. That gay people are able to enter into the covenant of marriage, biblically defined. According to God and Scripture there is no such thing as marriage between two men or two women. It is impossible. Therefore, such a ‘covenant relationship’ does not exist. Far from being a covenant relationship that God approves of, it is a relationship that God has labeled sin, and continuing in it will result in judgment.

      This doesn’t make people in homosexual relationships less human. But outside of repentance and turning to God it does mean they will face judgment, in the same way a flagrant lack of repentance in regard to any known sin will.

      The great news of the gospel is that Christ has died for sinners. Not that they may take his name and label, and continue in sin, but that they might repent and believe. Admitting their guilt and brokenness and casting all their hope upon Christ’s righteousness.

      Speaking the truth in love, to call yourself a ‘Christian man married to man’ is to dilute yourself into thinking that what you do is safe, good and commendable when in reality it is owing to a fallen world. Either you are a believer caught in sin and therefore called to repent. Or you are not a believer at all, and called to repent.

    10. Matthew –
      Thanks for taking the time to respond and for the kind tone you’ve taken. My comment seems to have taken a life of it’s own, I do not wish to suck any more oxygen out of this conversation about combating racism in the church (which is indeed a commendable aim). I’m very happy to continue this conversation offline (ford@fordswords.net) if you would like.
      Best regards,
      David

  5. You couldn’t say it any better. I have as a matter of fact experienced it. Where I come from it’s rare for one particular tribe to marry from some tribes. My mother and auntie (all Christians) vehemently opposed my idea of marrying from this tribe even though I had found myself a girlfriend. At the time I was growing in the Faith and used scriptures to refute their contestation: that in Christ Jesus we’ve become one family and there’s neither Jew nor Greek, or black and white or this or that. But they will not accept it and used traditional views to back their claim. And neither did I as I also used the Bible as my point of reference. Sadly we broke up not on that grounds but behavioural.
    But I say and affirm your argument that astonishingly there’s an incredible number of men and women in the pews who do not ascribe to oneness in diversity.
    Lots of “Christians” are selective in what to accept as right from the Bible.

  6. “He pointed out that interracial marriage was hard and should therefore be avoided.”

    I would like to more precisely define this racism you experienced, as you attribute your pastor’s words to mean that he thinks African Americans are inferior spouses for their children.

    1) Your pastor/mentor has been devoting his life to sharing the gospel within the African American community, purposely. He obviously has a heart for them/you. The gospel elevates any people, and culture. It elevated the European (white) barbarians out of the Dark Ages, and it elevated the enslaved African Americans in their time of subjugated suffering. It birthed a Martin Luther, a very educated and eloquent man. I doubt your pastor thinks African Americans are lesser.
    2) Your pastor’s words could be interpreted as evil if he inwardly holds to Ante-Bellum Deep South sensibilities by some towards African Americans as lesser people. Only God sees the heart. Your years of work alongside him show you esteemed his heart, words, and work, so I doubt that.
    3) Your pastor’s desire to stay within his ‘race’ (color, and/or culture) perhaps could stem from 2)’s comment, but probably,
    4) He is just speaking some truth. This is not about equality. Most people just tend and like to marry within familiarity. The general inclination toward homogeneity does not inherently mean an assumption that other cultures/colors are less.

    Also, there are mixed strands here-color, and culture. Some ‘blacks’ were more “white” in their culture (way of speaking, dressing, educated with many whites, etc.). And some whites are foreign to my culture as a fellow whitey. Are you assuming each color sticks with a certain culture?
    By the way, I love inter-racial families. But they are the exception, not the rule, not because anybody is forcing a wrong ideology necessarily. It’s just….

    “interracial marriage was hard and should therefore be avoided.” In his opinion. Or in his evil upholding that blacks are lesser people. Wisdom, or evil culture?… The older I get-and he sounds older-the more even I, who love mixed couples, have to admit this is true. Differences cultures are interesting. And they can be crosse! But staying mainly distinct is not necessarily bad. With equal character, big differences in culture is just “hard and should therefore be avoided”. And for those that feel that way, their not racist.

    1. Anyone who includes the sentence “By the way, I love inter-racial families.” in their post has outed themselves as a racist.

    2. But you know what? Interracial marriages are hard, as are cross-cultural marriages (Even between two “whites”). It doesn’t mean they’re to be avoided, it just means that you should be prepared.

    3. You said it well. Homogeneity seems to be a human tendency. Just consider high school students and how they separate into cliques! While delving into local history a few years ago, I discovered that a couple of generations ago, immigrants from separate European cultures living in the same small neighborhood maintained distinct invisible lines that were not crossed by either group. When another cultural group began moving into the area the first two groups left. This tendency has relaxed in recent years, so some allowance might be made for older people who hold a different word view. We have made strides toward multiculturalism and a more global world view.

  8. I guess that being happy to see a close family member married to someone of another ethnic group is probably the best indicator of total inclusiveness and acceptance. Here in UK, a recent opinion survey showed a very high percentage figure of people expressing that view.

  9. @ David S – I’m curious to know in what ways you think “the past and continuing struggles of people of color are different than those of people who are gay”.

    Of course “People are wrong to object to interracial marriage and that means people are wrong to object to same sex marriage” is a non-sequitur, and certainly there is an apples to oranges element to the comparison, to say the least, but my question is, given your overall view, what do you think the differences are?

    1. Hi John –

      The expressions of disapproval of these despised minority groups – racial minorities and sexual minorities – are very different in some ways and very similar in others. The atrocities committed against people of color are different and I don’t pretend to share that history. But the exercise of power against these groups looks similar in some ways too – employment discrimination, housing discrimination, unequal treatment under the law, etc.

      The comparison of interracial marriage and same sex marriage is by no means a non sequitur. The moral disapproval of both is grounded in the belief that the union is inferior and contrary to God’s design for humanity, and therefore, such coupling must be discouraged. People once fought the “normalization” of interracial couples the same say they fight the “normalization” of couples who are gay. Racism shares many of the same attributes as heterosexism.

      It’s a fair question – if you believe that racism is immoral, why do you believe that heterosexism is not? Both seek to diminish the humanity of an entire people group. I wager both will be equally socially unacceptable in 30 years.

  10. David S – first an aside – there’s no reply tab (or whatever it’s called) with your posts. I notice that with others from time to time. I don’t know why. Anybody?

    It is logically possible for moral disapproval of interracial marriage to be wrong but moral disapproval of same sex marriage to be right. Whether a person is correct in either case is not the issue. Of course it is logically possible for the disapproval to be mistaken in both instances, but with the mistake in one instance independent of the mistake in the other instances. Either way disapproving one doesn’t necessarily obligate a person to disapprove of the other .

    Still, on the subject of non sequiturs, it does not logically follow that if appeals to scripture against “miscegenation” were unfounded appeals to scripture against same sex marriage must necessarily also be unfounded. If someone thinks biblical arguments against same sex marriage are wrong then those arguments must be addressed on their own merits (or lack thereof) without reference to any wrong views regarding interracial marriage.

    I don’t think the moral disapproval of interracial marriage had to do with the notion that the union was inferior so much as the idea that one of the partners was inferior to the other . That’s not quite the same reason people disapprove of same sex marriage. I don’t think anyone posits that the problem with two white men, for example, being married is that one is inherently and irreversibly lower status than the other. While same sex attraction (in itself, never mind marriage) may be regarded as unnatural or immoral nobody really applies the term “inferior” to individuals who experience sex attraction in quite the same way members of some races apply that term to members other races.

    To use the term “heterosexism” and ask why I wouldn’t regard it as immoral the same way I regard racism as immoral is to somewhat beg the question. First you need to establish that homosexuality (should you object to the term it is , after all, the antonym of heterosexuality) is of a category with race, something I deny.

    But anyway, thank you for replying.

    1. Hi John,

      It’s logically possible racism and heterosexism are both wrong for the same reason – using innate and immutable characteristics of a minority people group to claim superiority of the majority.

      The role scripture plays has historically been relative. There is strong scriptural support for slavery and segregation – “scripture clearly says” was invoked regularly. There has been a change in our view of the scriptural permissibility of racism that coincided with the social change. That’s right and good. A moral interpretation of scripture must recognize the full humanity of all people.

      You say that you deny that race and sexual orientation fall in the same category. Your children and grandchildren will disagree with you. That, too, is right and good.

      Best,
      David.

  11. Pingback: Incognito Racist: The “Sterling” in Our Pews » ZIONICA.com

  12. Racism = Sin. And the church is full of sinners. ‘Nuff said. The rest is just emotivism, which is part of what’s wrong with our culture today.

  13. Racism is so pervasive in the church that your congregation is more likely to have incognito non-racists.

  14. Amazing to see how all the comments fastly swung around to the homosexual side. They were talking about a white guy that did not want his girlfriend around blacks. But suddenly the Homosexual Freedom Fighters swung into action to get their cause in the limelight. Just because you are following GOD’s law in believing that homosexuality is not normal and one of the sins that mankind has to repent of does not make you a racist. Homosexuality is a choice, it is not a matter of having been born black or white or anyother color. Not watch how I get bombarded and called hateful because I spoke out on what GOD’s word says about the subject of homosexuality.

  15. Pingback: Incognito Racism In Our Churches? RAAN Co-Founder, Phillip Holmes, Says Christian Believers That Think Like Sterling Do Exist | BCNN1 WP
  16. Pingback: Incognito Racism In Our Churches? RAAN Co-Founder, Phillip Holmes, Says Christian Believers That Think Like Sterling Do Exist | BCNN1 – Black Christian News Network

  17. While it is true that ALL humans are of the same race, it is also true that there are cultural and ethnic differences. Crossing these lines is difficult. One marries not only their spouse, they also marry their spouse’s family and culture. One should be aware of these differences and difficulties and also consider the fact that one cannot divorce their own family and culture when they marry.

  18. I find the comments here to be off the mark. Love my neighbor as myself, does that not mean, that I am just as concerned with their “salvation” and walk with Christ as my own? Not about physical love, marital love! The church is talking about our spiritual love for each other no matter shape size, color, age, culture ect. But as far as dating and marriage, if God is involved, it should be Chirst centered. I have found that most people when dating or finding a mate, their motivations and why they select the ones to date or marry, is from their own insecurities, hangups, or desires, and not seeking Gods match for us in all the ways that matter. For instance, does some woman date outside of her race to be different or rebellious? Some hurt by their own race, so they are determined to go out of their race, as if that is the problem. I think it is ridiculous to say if I don’t date or associate with someone outside my race, that makes me racist? If I turn someone down for a date because we are not of the same race, that does not make me a racist, it means I am not attracted to you, or I don’t like. Like people are attracted to like minded people! We seek out people we have things in common, not seeking out the total opposite. The church and preachers talk about our love for others in Christ, and witnessing to others….. race has nothing to do with that. Marriage is designed by God, led by God, it isn’t man made. I think the writer of this article is young, confused, and angry, and dare I say using race as an excuse for his own insecurities and confusion.

    1. To scream ‘racist’ because my White race is beautiful and we chose to stay that way shows the depth of the author’s envy, jealousy and insecurity. To hate what is beautiful for being beautiful and remaining beautiful is evil, and his article proves that ‘anti-racist’ is just a codeword for Anti-White

      It also seems the author has zero regard for the Golden Rule.

      Unless a White person has woken up, looked in the mirror and thought “I wish I was a half Black Brown skinned kinky haired person” they have no right to force onto others (their children) what they do not wish for themselves.

    2. For real? I think ‘the dog that yelps is the one that’s been hit’ and in this case you probably harbour racist sentiments. Your argument is incoherent, you swing from talking about types of love to accusing the author of being angry. Yes attraction is attraction, but shame on you. Racism is unacceptable

    3. Melody ~

      The writer of this article said “I found myself running into the roadblocks of disapproving parents who didn’t want me marrying their daughters.” He didn’t complain about women turning him down. He complained about parents turning him down. Then, when he discussed this issue with a white mentor, the mentor suggested that the issue was that white parents didn’t want their daughters to marry him. And he wrote this article to discuss that attitude that was directly expressed to him by a this mentor. He never said anything about having been personally rejected by a white woman.

      If a person doesn’t want to get involved with another person, for whatever reason, that’s their business. If you don’t want to marry someone because of their race, hair color, or any other personal characteristic, that’s your business. But if other people are trying to make a maxim that interracial relationships “should be avoided,” as the writer’s mentor did, that is just their personal opinion & is not in any way supported by Scripture. That’s the point here.

  19. Pingback: Incognito Racist: The “Sterling” in Our Pews | Christian Heritage News

  20. I am a 58yo, white, conservative, Christian man and I agree Mr Holmes’ article 100%. Christ says the human heart is very wicked and sinful. Racism is one of the wicked fruits of the sinful heart and can be seen manifested around the world acting out on various criteria. There are blacks killing blacks based on which tribe they are from; there are Muslims killing Muslims based on their differing interpretations of Muslim teachings. Oh, the world has different names for it and often paints it as political differences or “ethnic cleansing” But there should be no safe place for racism in the heart of a Christian; no place in the Christian heart where the Holy Spirit can’t administer the word to convict, rebuke and remove racist thinking, value judgments and attitudes. But, as humans, nothing frightens us more than the truth about ourselves and as Christ said “…men love darkness and will not come to the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” And because sin is the one thing all men have in common, racism can be present in every church and ethnic congregation. But just because it is present does not mean it should be left un disturbed or winked at. But ‘speaking the truth in love’ rebuke and always called the sin it is. Regardless of how long the offender has been a prominent member of the church or how much their family gives to fund church projects. Racism rejects and condemns a person for things they have no control over and sets ‘standards for acceptance’ that the person can’t meet. And that is why I call abortion THE MOST EVIL form of racism of all.

  21. Pingback: The Incognito “Sterling” Sitting In Our Church Pews | Urban Christian News

  22. Quit lumping blacks and homosexuals into the same category. It is no sin being black. It is sin being homosexual. (And this fact is not hate speech so just back off) Racism is sin and hatred of the person who has decided to practice homosexuality is sin. (And yes, I used the words “decided to” because I’ve yet to hear of any hard core evidence that, “I was born that way”.) Just a lie of Satan. Please show me in God’s word where interracial marriage is a sin. Also please show me in God’s word where it says that homosexuality is not a sin. It is amazing that we like to pick on a certain segment of society and run them in the ground for whatever reason when plain and simple is God’s command to “Love One Another”. It’s not rocket science folks. I as a Christian will call out the racist and the ones who are bashing the homosexuals. And please, when I disagree with the people who practice homosexuality, don’t label me a homophobic. I do not hate you.

    1. Well said Mr. Lewis. The danger of true racism is that it gives birth to classism and that leads to nationalism, which gave birth to Hitler. Racism, whether known or unknown, within a church affects the whole purpose for the church. What ‘salt of the earth’ believer who, harbors racism in their heart, is going to go to OR fund any missionary effort to reach a people group that they do not love, care for, hate, whatever you want to call it? And what racist believer is going to reach out to a neighbour of the race they reject?

    2. Mr. Lewis,

      I agree with all you said, except one point: that people aren’t born gay.

      Let’s look at the issue from another perspective.

      People are born corrupted. I, myself, was born with anger issues my wife does not have. I, myself, was born or at least developed from 4th grade forward lustful desires for women to a degree more than most of my male friends; also, this is another area where my wife doesn’t really struggle in the least bit. Come to find out, not only was I just sinful and chose to indulge in those perverted desires at a young age, but also, I naturally have an above average level of testosterone in my blood than most, or in other words, ‘I was born this way.’

      Now, my body’s being this way does not excuse my sin by no means. As a man, I’m sure you find your mind wander, if only for a second, and start wondering about an attractive woman nearby who isn’t your wife. This type of thing is common among pretty much all men in some form. Does it make it Biblically OK? By no means!

      So, what if people are, in fact, born gay? It shouldn’t affect your convictions about what the Bible says; however, it should affect your compassion for people who struggle and those who have made peace with this sin they where born more naturally prone to commit.

    3. ” Please show me in God’s word where interracial marriage is a sin”

      What, you’ve never heard of the Golden Rule ?

      As a White person unless you’ve looked in the mirror and thought “I wish I was a half Black brown skinned kinky haired person” you have no right to force that on someone else (your children)

      Case in point, look at Heidi Klum’s daughters, one is White and the other is ‘mixed’.
      Doesn’t your heart go out to the half Black Brown skinned kinky haired daughter ?

      Teenage years are tough and how do you think it would feel like for her to know that she could have inherited her mothers beauty had only her mother married a White man and not a Black man, but instead she has to go through life living as a ugly half Black Brown skinned kinky haired person while her older sister will get all the attention from boys because of her radiant beauty ?

      Meanwhile her older sister gets to inherit Heidi’s supermodel good looks and near flawless beauty because in her case her father is White.

      What sort of person would be so heartless as to force something like that on their own child ?

  23. ONLY in White countries are Christians routinely told we have to submit to the Anti-Christ agenda of creating a single ‘blended humanity’ to go along with his unholy single World Government and single World currency.

    As a White person unless you have woke up, looked in the mirror and thought “I wish I was a half Black Brown skinned kinky haired person” you can not force that on others (your children) without breaking the Golden Rule.

    To break the Golden Rule is sin, but it seems breaking the Golden Rule isn’t a big deal to the author of this article.

    The attempt to destroy EVERY White country through 3rd World immigration and ‘assimilation’ is GENOCIDE
    ‘anti-racism’ is a codeword for Anti-White

  24. Logan S. ~

    I appreciate your comment; however I must contest when you say “this sin they where born more naturally prone to commit.” Here are two reasons why.

    1. Romans 2:26-27a:
    “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the *natural* use into that which is *against nature*:
    And likewise also the men, leaving the *natural* use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another;” [asterisks mine]
    From this, we see that homosexuality was not in their nature; they weren’t born with it. But psychologists assert that sexuality is developed at very young ages, before memory, so that a person may always remember having same-sex attractions, such that they believe they were “born gay.”

    2. I remember having same-sex attractions for as long as I can remember. I was introduced to pornography at a very young age; the images were mostly of women, & I developed lesbian proclivities. When I turned 17 I “came out” as a lesbian & lived in that lifestyle for the next 17 years. However, I’ve been set free, & now I’ve been ecstatically married to a man for 5 1/2 years.

    I no longer identify thru a label of sexuality of any kind. I don’t call myself gay, straight, or bisexual. I solely identify as a child of God, a servant of Jesus Christ my Saviour. I assert that no-one is born gay, & that you too, David S., can find freedom from this sin in your life. God bless you all.

    2. Annie, thank you for your reply. I will have to look into it more.

      However, all I’m saying is regardless if one is born gay or not, sin is sin is sin, and we all have sinned, with evil intentions in our hearts from our youth (Genesis 8:21)–none are righteous, no, not one (Psalm 14 and Romans 3)–and are all, therefore, condemned and in need of the grace of God. I think we are in agreement on this.

      Now, there are a few things I think you should consider, too. 1) Genesis 8:21. People are born with evil hearts. 2)Psalm 51:5. There is iniquity in us at conception (before birth, the instant we are alive at conception, there is iniquity present). 3)We are naturally of the flesh and it’s corrupted desires. This flesh-nature is referred to our ‘old self’ (Romans 3 and Colossians 3). Furthermore, the flesh, our natural selves (or old selves if we have been born-again) cannot submit to God’s law, nor please Him (Romans 8:7-8). 4) Could it be that what Paul it’s referring to as natural in Romans 1 is that which God has created good? Likewise, could it also be that what God created as natural was corrupted when sin entered the world, such as the naturally good passions and desires God created were corrupted, thus, exchanged in mankind as a whole for that which is evil? What I’m asking is, are the natural things Paul lists natural in the sense that God created them in their nature uncorrupted, but now, after the fall they are corrupted or are they natural then corrupted? Because the second, if true, would imply a Pelagian idea that men are born naturally ‘clean-slated’ then are corrupted. This removes original sin.

      Maybe it’s more like this: We are born corrupted by sin, of the flesh, “estranged from the womb…[going] astray from birth” (Psalm 58:3). We become more corrupted as we sin, exchanging the Truth about God for a lie, being hardened in heart and given over to a debased mind by God. Therefore, before we are given new-birth in Christ (a new life with a new identity and new desires and mind), we could be corrupted in any number of ways, either from birth or from our choices to sin. Being born with homosexual intentions could be one of these corruptions, just as choosing to do homosexual acts is one. In the same way I ‘naturally’ am lustfully and unbiblically attracted to women, partially a result of my being born with unnaturally high testosterone levels and partially a result of my own sinful choices, so, too, it seems plausible for a one to ‘naturally’ have the same lusts and unbiblical desires towards the same sex, both in Scripture and in experience. Maybe, some–not all–homosexuals are both born with such tendencies and choose such things against God’s very good design for human sexuality.

      And, like I said in my first post, being born with homosexual desires makes it no less a sin, but it should make us more compassionate to help these people and show them the grace of God in Christ, not accepting such things as permissible, but struggling with them to live in the righteousness of Christ, walking according the Spirit and not according to what the flesh says is natural for us.

    3. Logan ~

      God bless you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

      I do not believe that the Bible teaches that we have a sinful nature. That term is not in the Bible (tho’ in some NIVs, the word *flesh* has been translated as “sinful nature,” but I think that is incorrect). The nature of something is what it is inherently; it cannot really be changed, only distorted. The nature of a chair is wood; you can’t change that, you can only alter the wood thru decorating, damaging, etc.; you can burn it to ashes, but then it’s not a chair anymore. The nature of humans is that we have free will; even God cannot change that (by His own design). And we have freewill to choose good or evil. The problem is that Adam gave our authority over to Satan, & God separated Himself from us. God created us to walk with Him, not on our own; so without Him, we choose sin over righteousness as soon as we know the difference between the two & are thus held accountable.

      Romans 1 explains how we damn ourselves. But first, we see in John 1:9 that Jesus lights everyone who comes into the world. That light gives us the knowledge of good & evil & makes us responsible to choose good. Romans 1:18 says that God is angry at us for holding the truth in unrighteousness. Why? Because He is manifest to us in nature (v 20), & when we knew Him, we did not glorify Him (v 20), instead choosing unrighteousness. When that happened, our hearts were darkened (v 20). Then God gave us up to uncleanness (v 24) & finally vile affections (26). Our nature was & is to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, but we went *against* our nature (v 26-27) ~ well, some of us did.

      If our nature was sinful, then sinning would be our natural state. Righteousness would be against our nature … it would be unnatural, an abnormality, a distortion. It wouldn’t make sense for God to be wrathful & punitive towards us if sinfulness was our very nature. Also, infants & aborted fetuses would have to be damned to hell. But the Bible teaches that we have freewill & that God gives us light, so that we are responsible for our choices. People are not damned because of something we can’t help; people aren’t damned because they don’t hear of Jesus. No, people are damned because whenever we reach the age at which we begin to hold the truth, we follow that by choosing to hold it in unrighteousness; then, our consciences get more & more darkened, moving us further away from truth. We choose to sin. So we become damned.

      Read Genesis 8:21 again. It speaks of youth, not conception. And in Psalm 51:5, David’s parents were sinners. They had not yet been imputed the righteousness of Christ. So, yeah, they conceived David in sin.

      Notice in Romans 7 that sin without the law is dead (v 8); & that without the law we were alive (v 9); but once we got the commandment, we died. We were *without the law* when we were too young to understand the law, to know the difference between good & evil. But at some point we became accountable, chose to sin, & incurred God’s wrath. At that point, eternal life with God became unavailable for us without the blood of Christ to wash clean our sins. But hallelujah that we have such an advocate! What a merciful Creator!

  25. Annie, thank you for being meek tempered and mildly worded. We have obvious soteriological difference that I think will make this a fruitless conversation to continue.

    This is the last thing I ask you to consider:

    Romans 9:10-16

    And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

    Be blessed. Continue to preach the Gospel and live as Christ before all. See you in heaven some day.

    1. Logan ~

      I would be a fool not to be “meek tempered” after all the Lord has done for me! I am just so grateful He snatched me out of darkness & that I have anything to offer at all.

      I am very familiar with Romans 9, but I’m not sure the point you are trying to make in terms of whether we have a “sinful nature” or are just sinners by choice. I know that people often think this passage somehow indicates that we have no choice in whether or not we become born-again, that God picks some people to save & others to damn. If these are somehow doctrinally wedded, I must confess my ignorance. I don’t study doctrines; I simply study the Bible; so I miss some of these connections.

      However, in terms of the issue of Romans 9 & the doctrine of election …

      Starting with the very beginning of the chapter, we see that Paul is bemoaning the fact that Israel, as a nation, is not going to be saved (at this point in history). And this whole chapter is talking about why that is. To get thru his whole argument, Paul explains how God had to choose which lineage would carry the promise of the seed of Christ. Because only one could be chosen, others had to be chosen against (i.e. hated, just as we must hate mother, father, sister, brother, etc. in order to choose Christ instead). That’s why Jacob got chosen, not Esau. It didn’t mean He was capriciously damning Esau’s eternal soul. God sovereignly chooses to accomplish His purposes: & His purposes include the salvation of as many people as possible.

      And we can see this when he gets to v 24 where he begins his main point: the (temporary) transplanting of the Jewish people by the Gentiles. He’s not talking about individuals whom He will allow to be saved & others whom He decides will be damned.

      “But *as many as received him,* to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” ~ John 1:12

      “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that *whosoever* believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” ~ John 3:16

      “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw *all men* unto me.” ~ John 12:32

      “For there is no respect of persons with God.” ~ Romans 2:11

      “Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ *unto all and upon all* them that believe: for there is no difference:” ~ Romans 3:22

      “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
      Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” ~ 1 Tim 2:3-4

      “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” ~ 2 Peter 3:9

      Many blessings, Logan.

  26. In one sense your mentor was correct. Close interracial relations as with marriage are difficult because you not only have the standard relationship of husband and wife but also with two sets of relatives and with cultural differences. I know how that works because I’ve been in that situation. It doesn’t mean that you should avoid it, but it does mean that you should be sure that your relationship is able to weather the difficulties.

  27. Obviously it’s a sign of bigotry if you’re just thoughtlessly opposed to interracial marriage for no other reason than you dislike black people. If the man and the woman love each other and are ready to make a shared life experience with each other, that can model Christ’s relationship with the church as well as any marriage. However, it’s still important to recognize that we can’t reduce this simply to the level of skin color. People with different racial backgrounds are going to bring different cultural baggage to the table of the relationship. The man and the woman need to take an honest look at that and figure out how this may affect a marriage. It’s not just “His pigment is different, so what?” If they decide it won’t be a barrier, then by all means, get married. But let’s not trivialize the extra thought and care that does have to go into an interracial marriage.

    1. @Brave Sir Robin, I think we can agree that generally people marrying across racial lines does present some cultural challenges which need to be considered carefully. However, depending on one’s circles/ surroundings, one can find themselves with more similarities with people from another race as opposed to people from their own race in a different context. I think that was the author’s situation – he most likely had several white friends and could easily blend into ‘white culture,’ so marrying interracially wouldn’t have been as much of a problem as marrying a black lady from an entirely different setting. Furthermore, even marriages of the same race are, in a way, a blending of two ‘cultures.’ They may not experience the challenges which come from an interracial marriage, but they are still hard work, and sometimes they fail – sadly. Personally I’m a fan of interracial marriage in church as I feel it’s a tangible demonstration of how no barrier is beyond the reach of Christ’s work. I’m very fortunate to be in a church with plenty of interracial, intercultural marriages! :)

  28. With havin so much content do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or
    copyright violation? My site has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either
    authored myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the
    web without my authorization. Do you know any methods to help reduce
    content from being stolen? I’d definitely appreciate it.

  29. I live in the south so I know what Mr. Holmes is speaking about. What I think he is missing is the idea of color vs. culture.

    I’m white and I tell my child there is no difference between her and our neighbor’s child (who happens to be black) physically speaking. BUT we all know, whether it’s politically correct or not to say, that there IS a difference in culture between everyday whites and everyday blacks.

    That is what holds a white parent back from allowing their child to date a black (hispanic, indian etc) person.

    Let’s be honest here: Would Mr. Holmes court a white woman whose whole family were members of the KKK? Or some Neo-nazi organization? Now that woman might be a godly sweet person but their children are going to have to deal with grandparents, cousins etc who will cause major issues and negatively influence them.

    It would be foolish to enter into such a relationship. I would never allow my daughter to enter into something like that because of the danger. It is the father’s responsibility to help his children choose the best mate and because he being older and wiser sees problems on the horizon and steers her away from that DOESN’T make him a racist.

    No offense Mr. Holmes but look at your fiance and her family. Even your future father in law, Dr. Baucham, said his barber calls him and his family “white”.

    Why is that? Why would a black barber make such a statement? Come on we all know why. Is the guy a racist? No he’s got eyes and common sense and he knows most black families in America have no father, %75 of black kids are born out of wedlock, very few black men studied at Oxford University, dress the way the Baucham’s do etc.

    You are young and idealistic and that’s great but some of us live in the real world and just because we choose to not desire our children to marry outside of their culture doesn’t make us racist.

  30. Pingback: Incognito Racist: The “Sterling” in Our Pews | Highest Good

Comments are now closed for this article.