For millennia, the human experience has existed within tribal groups. Only recently has a tribal mindset become something that is taboo, or even for some ethnic groups, immoral. And, who decided that it was immoral and at what point in history did it become that way? It seems that, in modern society, it is perfectly fine for some groups to have collective agency, while it is forbidden for others.
Let us first examine, within our own moral framework, if having an in-group preference violates our beliefs. As Southerners, we are Christian. It is this Christian moral framework, along with our Northern European genetics, English language, and shared geographic history, that defines our ethnicity. So it follows, that if having an in-group preference is inherently anti-Christian, then it would also be objectively immoral, given the fact that Christianity is the means by which the Southern man accesses objective morality.
When I mention that small groups of like kindred make for the best religious congregations, I usually get shot the same Bible verses or partial verses as a counter to my argument. Before I make the point that these people are intentionally, or unintentionally, misusing Bible verses to add cover for anti-Christian, secular worldviews, we will look at a couple of the most popular ones, in context, to see if they indeed show us to be living short of the moral standards we have chosen to follow.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
For some reason it is this verse that I see most used to justify the destruction of kindred congregations. It takes such a small brain to read this and think that Paul is teaching us that there are no ethnicities, while he is specifically addressing one. And, are we to think that the Bible is teaching us that there are no males or females? Of course not, and even with it being ripped from its context, it does nothing to counter the fact that the Bible does not forbid freedom of association.
Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.
Isaiah 56:3
This one was shot at me by a member of the New Independent Fundamental Baptist Movement, after I asked if the Bible had any prohibition against independant, ethnically akin congregations. This is the movement headlined by Pastor Steven Anderson, who is finding himself in the ADL’s cross-hairs after taking on the sexual degeneracy that is plaguing the modern Christian church. Pastor Anderson and the rest of the NIFB, despite all of their good work elsewhere, seem to have bought in completely with the globalist attempt to break apart kindred communities, especially ethnically homogeneous, Christian congregations.
The verse is not even an answer to the question that I proposed. It is referring to making sacrifices at the temple during the Old Testament period. Christians do not make sacrifices at any physical temple and we never will.
As we can see, there is no prohibition in the Bible against preferring to worship the Lord within the company and safety of one’s own kin. As a matter of fact, this has been the norm for ages up until the 1960’s. If it is such a “grave and immoral sin that goes against the Bible and all we believe,” would someone not have already pointed out the inconsistency? It is not like there has been a shortage of enemies to the Christian faith over the past couple of hundred years. Why is it now that this has become such an intolerable position to take?
Upon further examination, we see that it is not the Bible who is setting this prohibition, but some other source outside of our community. What is taking place is a replacement of our traditional biblical moral framework for a secular and politically progressive one. This replacement has been so slow and steady, where now people within our community have come to believe that it is integral to their worldview. That is why these verses are ripped out of context and misconstrued so terribly.
For the most part, these people are not anti-Christian, especially the younger ones. They truly believe that the false, secular moral values that they have been given are objective in their value. They then comb the Scripture looking for validation to the morals they already hold. It is our job to show them that they are “doing it backwards.”
Relevance has become a word that is heard more and more often in Christian circles, as well as, in the Southern community. The thought behind it being that, if we are going to have any influence on the multi-ethnic society we live in, then our worldview must have relevance within that culture. Our political and cultural adversaries use the “relevance argument” to target those of us who are afraid of being called backward, racist, sexist, you name it. This is a deceitful narrative that is designed to have our community completely removed from any influence on the culture at large and by having us accept whatever moral standards the solicitors of pop-culture deem as an appropriate replacement for our own. It is no accident that these replacement morals have a negative impact on our people.
This loosening of morals, in order to accommodate an outsider who refuses to bend theirs, is a character trait often seen in people of Northern European ancestry. One only needs to look at the British Isles and Scandinavia to see its destructiveness in action. Unfortunately, Southerners share this trait to a good degree. For our people, it works as a way of climbing the social ladder by showing how much more kind, caring and cosmopolitan you are in comparison to your recalcitrant, unreconstructed Southern kin. However, when those intransigent minorities, who have infiltrated your barriers and would also benefit from the destruction of your community, become aware of this trait, they begin to use it against your kindred. It is then that it must be exposed as a weakness.
As Southerners, we are already outsiders from the popular culture. As Christian Southerners even more so. Now is not the time to bend our morals and virtues in order to accommodate people who already think we’re “dumb rednecks.” History has shown that it is next to impossible to destroy a culture that does not voluntarily work to destroy itself. Let us not make it an easier job for them.
Persecution is indeed headed our way. We must double down on our moral standards and banish the world’s replacement morality from our congregations. Our future depends on it.
-By Dixie Anon
O I’m a good old rebel, now that’s just what I am. For this “fair land of freedom” I do not care at all. I’m glad I fit against it, I only wish we’d won, And I don’t want no pardon for anything I done.
Nice article! You wrote:
Well, they’re anti-Christian in the sense that they (ignorantly) embrace secular moral values that the Bible in no way endorses, and in fact repudiates. I would say that they are not anti-moral. Dr. Norman Geisler points this out somewhere in his “Systematic Theology”; I think maybe in the “logical precondition” section of the book, but it’s been a while since I read it, so don’t quote me on that. In any case, he (Geisler) explains in the book that a flawed and unbiblical moral frame of reference isn’t the same thing as a lack of moral conscience, which of course is very true. I have explained it before using the example of advocacy for abortion: the argument from that side of things invariably comes down to a moral argument – that it is wrong, therefore immoral, to deny “a woman’s right to choose.” That’s a moral argument no matter how you slice it up. It has to be that way because God created us in his image and likeness; human beings are moral agents, and there is no way of getting around that.
Yep. And Amen!
As you are well aware, I’m sure, it has long since been observed that “a text taken out of context is a pretext.” Also, proof texting from scripture is very often, and as you intimate, the proverbial “road to perdition” for those who are, in one way or another, incapable of “rightly dividing the word of truth.” From “Render unto Caesar” to “judge not that you be not judged,” to “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and on and on, proof texting and wrenching such verses out of their proper context (immediate and broader) has been a huge bane on God’s Church and its teaching. I explained this once to a young man who eventually became my son-in-law, who was, at the time, very prone to proof text a point or points from scripture without reading these verses in their proper contexts or considering the broad context from the book in question and its place in the whole Bible. He was prone to doing so because no one had ever instructed him otherwise. He (instinctively) replied that if I meant by “proof texting” that he was proving me wrong in his messages to me, that he wholly agreed. Lol. Kids! It’s like ol’ Dabney pointed out on numerous occasions in his writings: ‘Young people think old people are idiots; old people know young people are.’ …
“History has shown that it is next to impossible to destroy a culture that does not voluntarily work to destroy itself.”
To paraphrase the Bible, be gentle as a dove and stubborn as a mule.
What happened to Dixie Id and Southern Mercury on FB? You can PM me if you prefer. Thanks