A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

A Review of The South and Christian Ethics -- Part 1

Thomas Allen

    This article is a review of The South and Christian Ethics (New York: Association Press, 1962) by James Sellers. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses. Referenced articles in parentheses are related articles written by the author of this article.
     Sellers was the dean of the Vanderbilt Divinity School. He is a theologian on the liberal side. He is an integrationist, scalawag, and quisling, who has a low opinion of the typical Southerner (at times it approaches the stereotypical Klansman’s opinion of the Negro). Most of the country’s, if not most of the world’s, racial problems, he blames on Southerners. His book promotes integration and condemns segregation.
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner: “We will have to choose not between color nor race nor religion, but simply between being slaves and being free” (p. 21). Whites chose suicide — or at least their leaders did and the majority consented with inaction. Now Whites are losing their race and freedom. They had much more freedom then than they have today. Not only can they no longer tell the truth about Blacks and other races, they cannot tell the truth about homosexuals. If they do, they become persona non grata. The Communist-led civil rights movement is in the process of giving the United States, the Western world, and the White race the coup de grace.  (V. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement.”) Both Faulkner and Sellers have been proven to be wrong.
    Sellers writes that the problem before America and the South was, among other things, “what to do about communism” (pp. 21-22). What America and the South decided to do about communism was to join the Communists in bringing down America and the White race.
    Sellers believes that the civil rights movement is about giving Blacks freedom. It is not. Its purpose has been to enslave all. If the objective were freedom, it would have insisted on the Negro standing on his own and taking care of himself. It would not have enslaved Whites and made Blacks wards of the government. Nor would it have granted Blacks privileges way beyond what Whites were presumed to have had under segregation.
    Like most theologians, Sellers presents segregation as evil (p. 24). By inference, he presents integration as godly. On the contrary, the Bible presents segregation positively and condemns integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Is Integration a Moral Law?”.)
    Sellers notes that total desegregation, i.e., integration, will not cause the races suddenly to fall in love with each other and make them good neighbors. Naively, he believes that social, political, and economic equality is a “prerequisite to neighborliness” (p. 26). What he fails to realize is that the primary purpose of integration is to increase the power of those who really control the U.S. government, i.e., the ruling elite, i.e., the globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists. Forced integration has created much more conflict between the races than forced segregation ever did. The ruling elite feeds on conflict as it increases their power over the people.
    Perhaps the reason that integration causes more conflict is that it is unnatural. Segregation is natural. People prefer being with people like themselves. Thus, conflict under segregation is less than under integration. (All the racial conflict witnessed in the United States since about 1970 has been under an integrationist regime.)
    Sellers appears to side with the Communists; at least he opposes the anti-communists. To him, Communists are just good old neighbors who seek to harm no one. Americans should find them as such (pp. 26-27). At least he ended up on the winning side. The communist agenda has been almost completely implemented. Based on the Communist Manifesto, the United States today are a thoroughly Marxist country.
    Sellers is right about one thing. Southerners failed to maintain control of their States and the South (p. 36). When the push came, they caved. Some token resistance was offered, but little more. Southerners were mostly talk and no action. Thus, they lost. That is why the country is in its death throngs and no longer resembles the federation established by the founding fathers except in form. The dressing has been retained, but the spirit is gone. (V. “The Cold War” and “The Second Reconstruction.”)
    Sellers identifies one group that is completely innocent of the Negro’s plight: the Negro himself. First, the Northern Republicans abandoned him to win the Presidency and to exploit America’s industrial resources. (Most Radical Republicans never cared much about the Negro. They saw him as a weapon to be used in their genocidal war against Southerners.) (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) Next Southerners beat him down with segregation. Ever since slavery, he has been the center of domestic conflict, oppressed, denied his rights, etc. (p. 41). Southerners, especially in the decades following the War, were oppressed as much if not more than the Negro.  (V. “The First Reconstruction.”) They have been denied their rights: Even the Fourteenth Amendment stripped them of their political rights. Much of their property was stolen or destroyed. Carpetbaggers and scalawags with the backing of the U.S. army stripped them of their economic rights. Many lived in poverty until the 1940s. Yet they overcame these disadvantages without any special grants of privileges. (They did not have the advantage of being White; they were hated then, and still are, because they are White.) (V. “The First Reconstruction,” “The Gentlemen’s,” “The Cold War,” and “The Second Reconstruction.”) Still, the Negro seems not to be able to overcome these disadvantages even with the grant of special privileges.
    Sellers focuses a good deal on the “sin of slavery” and the adverse effect that it had on Southerners (43-44, passim). As shocking as it may be, slavery is not a sin. The Bible does not condemn slavery. It sets forth a code on the treatment of slaves. Even the New Testament finds slavery acceptable and does not condemn it. (This lack of condemnation of slavery is a major reason that New Englanders deluded with abolitionist propaganda abandoned the Bible.)
    Slavery may be undesirable for political, economic, or social reasons; but it is not immoral or a sin. Although Sellers asserts that slavery is a sin, he offers no Scriptural proof that it is. The only way for Sellers’ argument to work is for the South to be God’s Israel and Judah and the North to be His Assyria and Babylon.
    Sellers does an excellent job of contrasting the Southerner with the Northerner:

        • A sense of place, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s sense of time.
        • A high valuation on the rootedness and personalness of man, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s high valuation on the equality of man.
        • A passion for concreteness, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s thirst for universality in the abstract.
        •  A longing for stability, which may be contrasted with the Northerner’s hankering for progress (p. 47).

    Sellers believes that the best society is a blend of Southern and Northern attributes with more weight given to the Northern attributes (pp. 47ff). Unfortunately for Sellers, his dream society has not come to pass. Northern attributes have prevailed — perhaps because most of the ruling elite are Yankees. Southern attributes are fading into forgotten history.
    If one were to prevail over the other, Sellers would have preferred the Northern. He probably would have little objections to the way things have turned out — especially, to an incompetent Black President of questionable Constitutional qualifications controlled by power-hungry White men. He certainly would have considered today’s America with its collapse in morality and ethics vastly superior to the America of 1962. For it is much more integrated now than then. Moreover, Blacks have not only gained political, social, and economic equality, but they have also been given political, social, and economic privileges at the expense of Whites.
    Sellers does not seem to care much for the White race, especially the Anglo-Saxon part. He argues that integration is not part of the Social Gospel because many leading Social Gospelers of the nineteenth century were what today would be called “white supremacists” (pp. 71ff). Because many nineteenth-century Social Gospelers had not incorporated integration into the Social Gospel does not mean that it was not part of the Social Gospel by the middle of the twentieth century. Sellers incorporates integration into the Social Gospel. Both integration and the Social Gospel come from the same deadening Luciferin rootstock. They were destined to grow together. Ironically, both were controlled by “the money power” (the ruling elite) against whom the Social Gospelers railed.
    Sellers recognizes integration as becoming part of the Social Gospel in the late 1950s when the Negro began pressing in earnest for full manhood (p. 76). When the Negro began pressing for integration, he abandoned his push for full manhood. He admitted that he was not competent enough to stand on his own against all odds, real or perceived. Lacking competence, he had to attach himself to White Society and submerge himself into it. Roy Innis and a few other Black civil rights leaders realized this. That is why they abandoned integration and pushed for separation. Only by separation can the Negro achieve full manhood.
    Moreover, the Negro cannot achieve manhood as long as he is dependent on the government for handouts. Closely following the integration movement was an explosion in the welfare state that has kept the Negro in bondage. As long as the Negro is a ward of the government, he cannot achieve manhood.
    Sellers claims, “By 1910, the Negro was able to launch his own struggle a new through such agencies as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People” (p. 74.). Of the founders of the NAACP, (v. “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement”) only one was Black, W.E.B. DuBois, who later became a Communist. Most of the rest were Jewish radicals and socialists. Behind them was “the money power” in the person of Jacob Schiff, who also financed the Bolshevik Revolution through Trotsky. (V. “Soviet Union.”)
    Sellers supports the idea that God breaks down racial barriers (pp. 74-75). Yet according to the Bible, God is the original erector of racial barriers: “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Moreover, the Bible supports racial separation much more than it supports racial integration. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”)
    Sellers is correct about segregation not being the ultimate ideal (p. 75). Neither is integration. Both of them are detrimental to the races involved. For that reason, God prescribed separation. Separation preserves the races that God created. Each can develop to its highest level without being handicapped by the others. None would rule over the others. It ends racial conflict and the granting of special privileges to a particular race.
    Sellers prefers Northern industrialism to Southern agrarianism. The industrialists’ lust for money led to desegregation and integration (pp. 79-80). He places the love of money above the love of the land. Because of the love of money, the country was integrated. Thus the Black man, like the White man, has been reduced to the bottom line of corporate America’s ledger book. So much for the Black man standing on his own.
    Sellers comments on the Federal Council of Churches’ involvement in the Social Gospel movement (pp. 80ff). He fails to mention that the Federal Council of Churches was a front for the ruling elite, also called the money power, to corrupt Christian churches into adopting the ruling elites' Luciferin doctrine. (V. “Ecumenism.”)  This corruption has been highly successful.
    Sellers advocates what he calls “progressive social Christianity.” Progressives seek mandatory reform instead of relying on personal moral change. They recognize that the reform does not automatically result in utopia. Progressives reject the extremes of hard-nosed new Reconstruction and the establishment of a Black state in America. Instead they rely on Southerners being forced to give Blacks everything that they demand short of a Black state. Although he has a low opinion of Southern moderates (partial integrationists), he does not object to using them when convenient (pp. 84-85.).
    Instead of hard-nosed Reconstruction, soft-nose Reconstruction was imposed on the South. With a few invasions of federalized national guard units, the South quickly realized that if it did not unconditionally surrender to the Communist integrationist agenda, the U.S. government would impose hard-nose Reconstruction. (V. “The Gentlemen’s Agreement” and “The Second Reconstruction”)
    Blacks may not have gotten their own State. However, Latinos and other non-Whites are forcing Blacks to live in Black or White neighborhoods.
    Sellers is a proponent of the unity of man and the brotherhood of man (p. 87ff). He also promotes treating other people and by implication other races, as others, i.e., unique individuals (p. 91). Over time these two conflicted: Individuality cannot be maintained if unity succeeds. Integration achieves unity by destroying individuality. (V. “Diversity.”) Integration terminates in reducing all to motley mongrel man.
    Sellers believes in the “diversity is strength” doctrine, although he does not use that term. He does recognize each race as uniquely distinct (p. 93), which most integrationists fail to do — some even to the point of denying the existence of races. He promotes and preaches these racial distinctions (pp. 93-94).
    Contrary to popular propaganda, diversity is not strength. As recent history shows, it is highly destructive of liberty, especially freedom of speech. “Diversity is strength” results in political correctness (v.i.).
    Sellers quotes William Faulkner as saying, “He’s [the Negro] calmer, wiser, more stable than the white man” (p. 93). What drugs was Faulkner on when he said this? That may have had some truth to it in the days of segregation although that is doubtful. Most likely, segregation checked his lesser calmness, wisdom, and stability. Under the integration regime, his statement is obviously false. On average the Black man is not calmer, wiser, or more stable than the White man. (V. “The Dirty War: America’s Race War.”)
    Sellers does diverge from the typical Social Gospelers who so focused on reforming society that they forgot about saving the soul. “Man is responsible to God, not to society” (p. 94).
    Although he occasionally hints at it, reform is not necessarily good. If one were to beat another person’s face with a baseball bat, he has reformed the other’s face. However, is this reform good? More often than not, reform does more harm than good.
    Sellers has no aversion to allying with the devil to advance his (Sellers’) agenda (p. 95).
    He also seems to suffer from the delusion of believing people must live together to love each other (pp. 95-96).  He overlooks that familiarity often fosters contempt. Living around members of other groups often reinforces the stereotypical view of that group.
    Sellers objects to the false dichotomy of “separation of Church and State.” It is a ruse to keep the Church out of political affairs. The Church should support the State when it promotes the Gospel and condemn it when it does not (pp. 96-98). What happens when the Church, which is not unanimous, fails to understand the Bible? What happens when various factions of the Church disagree on important social issues? Sellers sides with the faction that agrees with him and condemns the other factions — so much for “diversity is strength.”
    On the issue of integration versus segregation, Sellers sides with the integration. Therefore, the Church should support the State when it pushes integration (pp. 97-98). Unfortunately for Sellers, as stated above, the Bible supports segregation more than it does integration, which it generally condemns. (V. “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation.”) Sellers must twist his theology to agree with his social and political philosophy. He must overlook many passages in the Bible that disagree with his philosophy.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2 

More articles on social issues.

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation

The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation
Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]
    In his book Segregation and the Bible[1] (1958), Everett Tilson, a Methodist minister, attacks several Biblical arguments that opponents of integration and interracial mating used. He picks out a few of the weakest and often absurd Biblical arguments used by segregationists to examine. Moreover, he often obfuscates his contention by confusing and confounding biology (race) with religion and race with nationality and ethnicity. Some segregationists are also guilty of this confusing and confounding.
    One is that all the races of humans descended from Noah’s sons. Aryans (also called Homo albus, the White race, and white Caucasian) descended from Japheth. Turanians (also called, Homo luridus, the Yellow race, and Mongolian) descended from Shem. Apparently, this descent made the Hebrews Turanians although proponents of this descent usually claim that the Hebrews were Aryans. Negroes (also called, Homo niger and the Black race) descended from Ham because of the curse Noah placed on Canaan, Ham’s son.
    Alternatively, some claim that the descendants of Shem were the Aryans who settled in the Middle East. The descendants of Japheth were the Aryans who settled in Europe and the Turanians of Asia. How Japheth sired two different races, or more correctly two different species[2] (in this article race is used as a synonym for species), they seldom attempt to explain. Ham is the father of the Negro.
    Ironically, young-earth Christians, Christians who believe that Earth is no more than 10,000 years old, make the same claim. They claim that all the races of humans descended from the sons of Noah. However, most omit the Negro descended from Ham because of Noah’s curse. To explain this descent, they resort to Darwinism in spite of rejecting evolution.
    Tilson correctly notes that “no reputable scientist has yet attempted to account for the origin of the three major racial groups within a single generation from a set of common parents.”[3] To get around this problem, a few segregationist creationists maintain that God created the races from Noah’s descendants. Unfortunately for them, the Bible offers no hint for this conclusion.
    At times, Tilson appears to adhere to the doctrine that races of humans do not exist. However, he appears to hedge his position enough not to deny the existence of races completely. If human races do not exist, then racial discrimination and racial segregation cannot exist. One cannot discriminate against and segregate from that which does not exist. Furthermore, one cannot integrate with something that does not exist. Without the existence of the human races, his book is meaningless. Tilson seems to want both: Races do not exist; however, racial segregation and racial separation are egregious sins.
    If God finds racial segregation, racial separation, and miscegenation abhorrent sins, why did He not include them in the Ten Commandments? He includes the sin of miscegenation with the Sixth Commandment: the prohibition against adultery (mongrelization). (To commit adultery means to mongrelize.)[4] It also violates the Fifth Commandment, which forbids killing or murder. Interracial mating results in the death of the races involved. Moreover, miscegenation is included in the Fourth Commandment: honoring one’s parents. When a Negro mates with a Turanian, both dishonor their parents. They reject the greatest gift that their parents can bestow on them: their special God-given racial traits. Miscegenation also violates the Seventh Commandment: the prohibition of stealing. For example, when a Negro mates with an Aryan, the Negro is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Aryans, such as, lighter skin, straighter and lighter colored hair, a narrower nose, larger ears, etc. The Aryan is attempting to steal for his children traits that rightfully belong to Negroes, such as, darker complexion, thicker lips, smaller ears, thicker skulls, longer arms and legs, etc. Interracial mating violates the Tenth Commandment, which forbids covetousness. People covet another race’s particular traits so much that they mate with the race that possesses the coveted traits to destroy its God-given traits. If they cannot possess these traits, no one else will.[5]
    What Tilson and especially the segregationists whom he criticizes fail to realize is that the descendants of Noah’s sons are Aryans. The other races have different origins and different parentage and ancestry.[6]
    Either God created the races of humans or they evolved. Although Tilson offers no explanation of their origins, he seems to be in the evolutionist camp. (Ironically, most Christians who believe that the Noachian Flood covered the whole planet and who are creationists typically resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of human races.) If God created the races of humans, should Christians support and promote conditions, laws, and policies that lead to their demise? Tilson does; he supports and promotes conditions, laws, and policies that result in their destruction. Perhaps he does so because he does not credit God with their creation.
    To justify miscegenation, Tilson cites several verses that he claims support interracial marriages. They are Genesis 16:3, 38:2, 41:50, Exodus 2:21, 12:38 Leviticus 24:10, Numbers 11:4, 12:1, and Deuteronomy 21:10-13. He also cites Rachab in Jesus’ ancestry (Matt 1:5) and Ruth, another ancestor of Jesus.
    Genesis 16:3: “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” When Abram married an Egyptian, he did not marry outside his race. He did not violate the Scriptural prohibition against interracial marriages and mating. He married an Aryan of a different nationality.
    “Egyptian” in this verse is the translation of Mizraim. For much of its ancient history, two racially distinct people inhabited Egypt. They were the Mizraim, who were Aryans, and the Pathrusim, who were Melanochroi (also called Homo brunus and brown Caucasians). The Mizraim lived mainly in Lower Egypt and were the Egyptians encountered most often by the Israelites. The Pathrusim lived mainly in Upper Egypt although they were not uncommon in Lower Egypt. These Pathrusim are the ancestors of today’s Fellahins.[7]
    Moreover, according to Deuteronomy 23:7-8, a marriage to an Egyptian was an acceptable marriage. The only restriction placed on these marriages was that the descendants of these marriages could not enter God’s assembly until the third generation.
    Genesis 38:2: “And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.” Judah did marry a Canaanite. According to Deuteronomy 7:1-4, marriage with Canaanites was prohibited. Unfortunately for Tilson, nowhere does the text hint that this marriage was acceptable. On the contrary, it was a sin, and it led Judah to another sin: incest. This verse does not prove that mixed-racial marriages are acceptable. It just proves that humans, even Aryans, are sinners. If this verse proves that interracial marriages are acceptable, then Chapter 38 of Genesis also proves that incest and prostitution are acceptable.
    Genesis 41:50: “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.” In Genesis 41:45 Joseph married Asenath, an Egyptian. As noted above, Egyptians at this time were of the same race as the Israelites, or at least the upper echelon of Egyptian society was although the peasants may have been of a different race.  Being the daughter of an Egyptian priest, Asenath was almost certainly the worshiper of Egyptian gods and not of Jehovah. Her name means “worshiper of Neith.” She may have converted later, but no evidence is given of such conversion. These verses are evidence that the Scriptural prohibition against mixed marriages is racial and not religious. A footnote in The Berkeley Version of the Bible to Genesis 46:20 affirms this: “Her training of Manasseh and Ephraim would hardly be in the Hebrew faith.” Therefore, Joseph married someone of his race who most likely was not of his religion.[8]
    Exodus 2:21: “And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.” Numbers 12:1: “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”
    In Numbers 12:1 Moses had married an Ethiopian or a Cushite. (“Ethiopian” is the translation of Kûwshîy, which is literally “Cushite.”) Cush refers to Arabia in general, and Cushite refers to the people of Arabia in general.[9] Moses’s wife was a Midianite and a Kenite as well as a Cushite. Cush was a region, Arabia. Midian was an area within this region. The Kenites were a tribe or people inhabiting this area. An example of an English colonist who came to the United States helps illustrate this phenomenon. An Englishman living in Virginia could correctly be called an American (Cushite), a Virginian (Midianite), or an Englishman (Kenite). So closely related to the Israelites were the Kenites that they were later considered a part of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:55; 1 Samuel 27:10). The woman referred to in Exodus 2:21 is the same woman referred to in Numbers 12:1. The Bible gives no indication of Moses ever having more than one wife. Therefore, Moses’ wife was of the same race as he, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Exodus 12:38: “Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.” Since the Israelites were fleeing Egypt, assuming that these other people were Egyptians, Mizraim, is logical. As discussed above marriages with Egyptians were acceptable as they were racially identical to the Israelites.
    Numbers 11:4: “And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?” The explanation for this verse is the same as Exodus 12:38. The mixed multitude were Egyptians. (Perhaps, some of these Egyptians created most of the turmoil, complaints, and rebellion that the Israelites experienced in their journey to the Promised Land.)
    Leviticus 24:10: “And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp.” As shown above, marriages with Egyptians (Mizraim) were not prohibited because Mizraim were Aryans.
    Deuteronomy 21:10-13: “(10) When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, (11) And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; (12) Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; (13) And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”
    These verses need to be read in the context of Deuteronomy 7:1-3. Deuteronomy 7:1, 3 reads, “(1) When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; (3) Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.”
    The only logical conclusion is that God did not reverse Himself in Deuteronomy 21:10-13. The prohibition in Deuteronomy 7:1-3 remained in effect. (The people identified in Deuteronomy 7:1 were most likely Aryan-Melanochroi hybrids.) However, He was clarifying that the Israelites could marry Aryans, such as the Philistines, who resided in the region of their present and future conquests. (What is not mentioned either way are the Rephaim, Anakim, Nephilim, and related people who lived in that area. They were remnants of the human species of giants that lived on the Earth before the Flood. [The Nephilim are mentioned as living before the Flood in Genesis 6:4 and after the Flood in Numbers 13:33.][10] God must have known the females of these people were so repugnant in the eyes of the Israelites that they would not consider marrying them. This species of human seems to have become extinct by the time that the Israelites split into Israel and Judah.)
    However, Tilson ignores Deuteronomy 23:2: “No half-bred may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” (The New Jerusalem Bible). If God approves of interracial mating, why does He forbid the mix breed offspring of such relations from entering His assembly? On the contrary, God values racial purity so much that He does not want a racially mixed person to be part of His congregation or church.[11]
    That the Rachab of Matthew 1:5 is the same as the Rahab of Jericho is highly unlikely. In Matthew, Rachab is identified as David’s great-great-grandmother. David was born about 1049 B.C. Jericho fell about 1450 B.C. Thus, 400 years elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David. Therefore, the average age of David’s father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandmother would be 100 years when they bore David or his ancestor. Too much time elapsed between the fall of Jericho and the birth of David for Rachab of Jericho to be David’s great-great-grandmother. The conclusion is that the Rachab who married Salmon was an Israelite.
    As for Ruth, true, she was a Moabite. However, she was a Moabite by residence — not by race. Ruth lived in the country of Moab and was, therefore, a Moabite. However, she was not racially a Moabite. Moab had absorbed much of Reuben, so she may have been a Reubenite. Mexico can be used to illustrate this phenomenon. Both Aryans and Turanian Indians live in Mexico. Both are called Mexicans, but they differ racially. Ruth was racially the same as Boaz, so miscegenation did not occur.
    Except for Ezra 9 and 10, Tilson fails to discuss any of the many verses that support those who oppose miscegenation and interracial mating. These verses include: Genesis 6:1-7, Genesis 24:1-4, Genesis 26:34-35, Genesis 28:1-2, 6-7, Genesis chap. 34, Exodus 11:7, Exodus 33:16, Exodus 34:10-16, Leviticus 19:19, Leviticus 20:26, Leviticus 21:14, Numbers chap. 23, 24, and 25, Deuteronomy 7:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:2, Joshua 23:12-13, Judges 3:5-8, 1 King 8:53, 1 King 11:1-8, 1 King 16: 30, 31, 1 King 21:25, Nehemiah 8:1-18, 9:1-3, Nehemiah 10:28-31, Nehemiah 13:1-3, 23-31, Psalm 106:28-35, Isaiah 2:1-9 (esp. v. 6), Jeremiah 2:19-25, 29, Ezekiel 16:15-39, Ezekiel 44:6-23, Hosea 5:3-7, Hosea 6:7-10, Hosea 10:1-10, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:18, 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 (esp. v. 8), Hebrews 12:12-17, Hebrews 13:4, 2 Peter 2:9-16, Jude 3-11, Revelations 2:12-14, Revelations 2:18-23, Revelations 5:9, 7:9, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15, 21:24, 22:2.[12]
    Tilson does discuss Ezra 9 and 10, one of the strongest arguments in the Bible for racial segregation. He attacks that argument by making a host of assumptions that are not in the text. Thus, he is guilty of what he accuses the segregationists of doing, that is, making assumptions that are poorly supported by the text.
    Tilson discusses the importance of God as the Creator. He notes that there are two types of ways that people view God as Creator: “self-renouncing individuals standing on the threshold of despair, and self-centered individuals reminding the world and the Lord of their magnificent gifts and glorious achievements.”[13] Tilson probably considers himself the former, yet he gives God no credit for creating the races. Then he asks, “How can you possibly justify the attachment of so much importance to differences in the color of human skin?”[14] The answer is that God created them. This answer Tilson rejects. Since God created the races, people of all races need to work to prevent their demise. The surest action that will preserve them is racial separation, as that great civil rights leader Roy Innis declares.
    Tilson believes that people who want to separate from people of other races want God to give their race favorable treatment. There may be some truth to this. However, separate or different treatment does not necessarily mean better or worse treatment. What he claims about race is equally true of intelligence, talent, and ability. Ultimately, all these come from God. If one needs his appendix removed, his prejudice will lead him to discriminate against barbers in favor of a surgeon.
    Like most integrationists, Tilson equates the desire for racial separation and segregation with racial hatred. While some segregationists advocate racial separation or segregation because they hate Blacks, many do not. Where is hatred implied in the desire for segregation? Does one hate people with a level four or five contagious diseases because they do not want to be around them? Does someone hate people who speak a foreign language because he prefers not being around such people? Most people prefer segregating their children from pedophiles. Do they express this preference because they hate pedophiles? Catholic nunneries discriminate against men and refuse to integrate with men. Does this mean that nuns hate men? If he is consistent, Tilson would answer all these questions yes; they discriminate and segregate because of hate. Actually, these acts of discrimination and segregation are important to protect the health, morals, and welfare of the people involved. Likewise, racial segregation and separation are important in the protection of the lives of the races. Racial prejudice is not a sin; it is a love of one’s race. 
    Tilson asks, “Do you ground your plea for integration in the equality of men among men or in the equal dependence of all creatures on their Creator?”[15] According to Acts 17:26, God determined the boundaries of the habitats for the various races. As the Creator assigned each race its habitat, the integrationists must base their plea on the equality of men among men.
    Tilson believes that the Bible presents God as treating humans equally, i.e., God is an egalitarian. It does not, and God is no egalitarian. For example, according to Revelation 17:8, not everyone’s name is “written in the book of life.” Those “not found written in the book of life . . . [are] cast into the lake of fire” (Revelation 20:15). Some people receive eternal life. Some people receive eternal death. What greater inequality is there than this?
    Moreover, Daniel 12:2 shows a three-tier treatment of man. First “many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.” Not everyone will be awakened — an inequality of treatment and condition. Second, of those awakened, some awaken “to everlasting life” and “some to shame and everlasting contempt” — again inequality of treatment and condition. If all men were equal, would they not all receive the same treatment?
    Other examples illustrating that God is not an egalitarian are found in Malachi 11:2, 3, Exodus 33:19, Deuteronomy 7:1-6, Proverbs 22:2, Matthew 15:26, 22:14, 25: 14-30, 25:31-34, 41, John 9:1-6, Romans 9:20-23, and 2 Peter 2:12.[16]
    In expressing his affinity for Negroes, Tilson argues for conditions, laws, and policies that result in the death of the Negro. He has a terminal case of Negrophilia-Albuphobia.[17] As much as he loves the Negro, he seems to hate the Aryan even more. The conditions, laws, and policies that he supports and advocates result in the death of both. Yet he would claim that what he promotes would not result in their death because neither really exists. He seems to believe or wants to believe that neither race exists in spite of writing a book condemning racial segregation, which cannot exist without races.
    Tilson presents integration as divinely ordained by God. If integration is good and holy as Tilson maintains, why would God let atheist Communists and their camp followers lead the charge for integration?[18] He does not say. Moreover, he seems oblivious to the involvement and importance of Communists in the integration and civil rights movement. The answer is that integration is not good and holy. In Old Testament times God often used pagan nations to punish Israel and Judah for straying from Him. Likewise, today God is using integration and related actions, such as open borders, to punish the Aryan people of the West for straying from Him.

Endnotes

1. Everett Tilson, Segregation and the Bible (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press), 1958.

2. Thomas Coley Allen, Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1999.

3. Tilson, p. 20.

4. Thomas Coley Allen, False Biblical Teachings on the Origins of the Races and Interracial Marriages (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 2001, pp. 18-19. V. S. Herrell, The Six Law of God Ού μοιχεύσεις, 3rd ed.  (Kodak: Herrell Brothers Publishing House), 1999.

5. Thomas Coley Allen, Integration Is Genocide (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1997, pp. 10-13.

6. Thomas Coley Allen, Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man (Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Co.), 1998, pp. 51ff.

7. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12.

8. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, p. 12. Allen, Adam to Abraham, p. 71.

9. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 73-77.

10. Allen, Adam to Abraham, pp. 185-189.

11. Allen, False Biblical Teachings, pp. 19-21.

12. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 13-17.

13. Tilson, pp. 100-101.

14. Tilson, p. 102.

15. Tilson, p. 103.

16. Allen, Integration Is Genocide, pp. 77-79.

17. Allen, Integration is Genocide, pp. 64-65.

18. Thomas Allen, “The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement,” 2015.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on religion.