THE MELTING POT MYTH-PART TWO

THE MELTING POT MYTH

part 2

Did our early founders come to establish pluralism,

or advance the Christian faith..?

Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it…        Matthew 7:13

Colonies Established with Specific Ideas by a Picked Stock

           The population that entered Colonial America between 1607 and 1776 was a picked stock morally and physically. Even more striking than the similarity

of national origin and race, was the strong religious convictions and common beliefs held by our early founders. This, coupled with a high level of vigor

and ability, truly made our colonial population a “chosen people.”1 Like the Israelites of old, they were rigorously selected by a series of challenging

ordeals, which would have otherwise discouraged or even killed off the weak, worthless and faint of heart. As a New England Puritan once remarked, “God

had sifted a whole nation that He might send choice grain into the wilderness.”2

           Contrary to modern opinion, these early settlers established their colonies with specific ideas in mind. Those with the most definite plan were

the numerous religious refugees. Largely men and women of unusual character who had exiled themselves for conscience's sake, they sought to establish in

a new land the fulfillment of their ideals.3 Drawn from the Protestant districts of northern and western Europe, especially where the enlightenment of

the Reformation was most prevalent, they endeavored to institute colonial self-government and the propagation of the Christian faith.

The Purpose of Colonial Charters and Documents

           This intent was clearly expressed in the many colonial charters and documents. The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606,

commenced with these words:

           We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty

God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance

of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages,  living in those parts, to human Civility, and to settled and

quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of and agree to, their humble and well-intended Desires.”4

           In the Mayflower Compact of 1620, often considered the most remarkable of colonial documents, we read the following:

           Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and country, a Voyage to plant the

first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine

ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid.5

           In many instances, the colonists also wished to achieve independence from the large bureaucratic churches and governments of Europe, as expressed

in The Articles of Confederation of The United Colonies of New England, dated 1643:

           Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and

to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace;...6

           Other colonial documents bear witness to this same intent, however, time and space does not permit their reprinting. Only Manhattan Island was

established chiefly for trade and commerce, yet our modern educators would have us believe this was the case everywhere. Elsewhere, the foundations laid

were deep and indelible. In Anglican Virginia, seat of the old South, Cavalier and Royalist established a political and military dynasty based upon the

"Providence of Almighty God" and the "Propagation of (the) Christian Religion." In Pennsylvania, Quaker and German dissenters instituted their colonial

government for two ends: "first, to terrify evil doers: secondly, to cherish those that do well;...”7      

           The result - its valleys soon became a land of peace and plenty. In the Hudson River Valley, Calvinist Dutch instituted Christianity as a part

of the common law,8 and they, too, reaped commercial and agricultural success. Near the Delaware, adventurous Swedes pioneered the first Lutheran colony

based upon belief in "Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World,..."9 In New England, Puritan thrift, industry and piety generated considerable wealth from

lumber, fish and waterpower.

In Boston, New Rochelle and Charlestown, devout French Huguenots made these cities leading cultural and political centers. Along the Appalachian highlands,

fervent Presbyterian Scotch, with ax, gun and Bible, established civilization on our western frontier. These distinctly were the foundations of Colonial

America.

As to what type of nation we were to be, this was determined in the many court cases of the 19th and 20th centuries. In Peoples vs. Ruggles, New York -

1811, Chancellor James Kent. the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:

           The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith

and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the

obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency, and good order... The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever

it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the

religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely

supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain

reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines

or worship of imposters. 10

 Denominational Make-up of Colonial America

            In review of the various denominations of Colonial America we find the following. New England was almost exclusively Congregational, save Rhode

Island, which housed some Baptists and the Nation's first synagogue. The Hudson River Valley was mainly of the Dutch Reformed Church, whereas the Mohawk

Valley was German Lutheran. On Long Island there were Presbyterian and    Congregational churches, while on Manhattan, Anglican, Catholic and Jewish places

of worship could be found. Northern New Jersey was Dutch Reformed, while southern Jersey was mainly Methodist, Presbyterian and Swedish Lutheran. Pennsylvania

proved more varied, having Quakers, Moravians, Mennonites and Amish, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Roman Catholics.

Maryland also had Roman Catholics, and many Methodists as well. The Southern tidewater, however, (from Maryland down through Virginia and the Carolinas),

was nearly all Anglican, whereas the Piedmont and the Appalachian highlands was mostly Presbyterian. Scattered throughout the South were also Baptists,

Huguenots and Moravians. This was the so-called religious “Melting Pot.”11

           Curiously, the only non-Christian element in the colonies were the Jews. Concentrated in small self-contained communities, their numbers were

but trifling. Lucrative opportunities in the trade of rum, spices, cotton and negro slaves had originally attracted scores of these Sephardic Jews from

the West Indies. During the first half of the 18th century, Charlestown, South Carolina had the largest Jewish population of any city in the Thirteen Colonies.

Other cities with significant Jewish populations were New York, Philadelphia, Newport and Bristol.12

           This, however, did not qualify us as a "Melting Pot." Outside these major ports, the Jewish presence was generally unwelcome. Similarly, many

of the colonies legislated against

Roman Catholics as well. Often referred to as "papists," most colonies, including "friendly Pennsylvania," sought not to attract these Catholic immigrants,

for fear of their strict loyalty to the Pope and Church of Rome. Massachusetts Bay excluded Catholics as well as Quakers, while the coastal plain of Virginia

wished only to maintain her Anglican character.

20th Century Introduction of The Melting Pot

MELTING POT OR BIBLE COMMONWEALTH

           The very idea that we were to be a 'Melting Pot" was certainly not prevalent among the colonies leading men, save perhaps, Rhode Island's Roger

Williams.13 In fact, the term "Melting Pot" did not fully emerge until the 20th century, when Jewish playwright, Israel Zangwill, produced his little drama,

“The Melting Pot.”14 .

           Performed at the Capitol theater in Washington D.C., on October 5, 1908, “The Melting Pot,” in short, was an appeal by Zangwill for race fusion

in America.15 It, of course, came at a time when the attitudes of Americans became increasingly uneasy about large scale and diverse immigration to these

shores. "Could we stand it?"-- they asked - “If so, how long?" “Were alien ideas undermining our institutions, our precious heritage?” “Physically and   morally,

what kind of people were we destined to become?”16

America Recast as a Land of Race Fusion

           Then came Zangwill's story of race fusion in America. Disregarding 300 years of American history, Zangwill recast the identity of our Nation--that

America was indeed a “Melting Pot.”

           How appealing, how expressive, how convenient. It calmed the rising tide of apprehension; it quieted misgivings about unchecked immigration.

Few asked whether it was fitting to our national destiny. Few questioned whether Mr. Zangwill's background and familiarity with the intricate facts of

immigration and history were such as to justify him in assuming the heavy responsibility of historical interpreter. Any concern or evidence of national

decay was merely an  illusion.17 Thus began historical revisionism in America. Through the power of pen Zangwill preached his new gospel of assimilation:

It is the fires of God round His Crucible. There she lies, the great Melting Pot--listen! Can't you hear the roaring and bubbling? There gapes her mouth--the

harbour where a thousand mammoth feeders come from the ends of the world to pour in their human freight. Ah, what a stirring and a seething. Celt and Latin,

Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian - black and yellow - Jew and Gentile.18

           Only in America could all differences of race, creed and color become extinct. And, in the process of this amalgamation, according to Zangwill,

the Jew would reach the millennium.19

America Viewed as Best Solution to Jewish Question

           In reality, Israel Zangwill viewed America as a new world with unlimited possibilities for settlement of the harassed multitudes who fled the

pogroms and ghettos of Russia and Eastern Europe (also known as the pale), after 1882.20 He freely admitted that after "Jewish Territorialism" (settlement

of Palestine by European Jews), "America (was) the best solution of the Jewish Question.”21

Moreover, Zangwill wished to see a synthesis of Judaism and Christianity. He wanted to erase the differences between the two faiths by melting them, in

a "crucible of love (?),” into some form of universal brotherhood where all distinctions between men and religions disapear.22

           Contrary to Zangwill's crucible, however, remained the  historical fallacy of Jewish assimilation. Though he preached a message of racial and

religious fusion, he, like the Pharisee of old, resisted a melting of his own Jewish individuality. To do so, of course, would be to betray the secret

of Jewish survival--the profound conviction that the Jew cannot tread the broad way of

assimilation.23

           In "The Melting Pot," Israel Zangwill failed to be practical and honest: to fuse both race and religion, would ultimately precipitate the destruction

of America's race heritage and Christian foundations. In its place, American society would degenerate into a “federation of cultures,” a type of "cultural

pluralism," politically unstable, without common purpose and void of its Christian base. Oddly enough, Zangwill's hope would undermine the very thing which

he wished to be a part of-­a nation which offered strength, stability and opportunity.

 Colonial Forebears Saw a Clear Need for Like-mindedness

           As another Jewish writer admitted: “To be sure, there must exist among these (immigrant) groups a desire to live in harmony with each other

and to foster a dominant theme.”24 No doubt, that is why our early colonial forebears saw a clear need for like-mindedness. None of the leading men of

New England, for example, ever wished or expected a democratizing and pluralizing of our social and political life. Most, like the Reverend John Cotton

and Governor John Winthrop, feared and detested Social Democracy. The latter once cursed it as the "meanest and worst of all forms of government." 25 Instead,

Winthrop, twelve times Governor of Massachusetts Bay, believed in a Bible commonwealth, presided over by an elect minority.26

           The conception of this Bible commonwealth was quite clear to Winthrop and his Puritan associates. To achieve its ends, they had entered into

a covenant with God and one another: "We must be knit together in this work as one man, we must entertain each other in brotherly affections."27 This but

echoed Paul's message inRomans 15:5-6, that "the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with another

according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” None of Paul's letters nor

those of the founders of New England suggest a sympathy or desire for a "Melting Pot."

To the contrary, they indicate a sense of mission, narrow and single-minded, and one characteristic of the American mind-set as a whole.28 In fact, those

founders of the Puritan Colony knew exactly what they wanted. They had no intention of establishing religious freedom in the pluralist context on the New

England shore. The Bible Commonwealth of Massachusetts was inaugurated by the Puritan forebears for one expressive purpose: to guarantee that colony a

freedom to worship in their way, and not any other way.29 They harbored no Messianic complex to convert others to their beliefs, nor did they come to this

hemisphere to plant a field of    foreign missions. All they desired was to be left alone. So jealous were they of their religious convictions and practices,

they barred the entrance of Quaker missionaries,30 as well as papists and Jews. Mohammedans, Hindus, Pantheists and secular Humanists were simply never

imagined as potential immigrants.

           According to historian, Samuel Eliot Morison, the Puritan's principle purpose was to continue the Reformation that had begun in Queen Elizabeth's

reign.31 They had quit England because of what they believed was a corruption of church and state to perform.32 Furthermore, they separated from the Anglican

Church because they failed in reforming that institution of its humanist and pagan practices.

New England Commonwealths most Homogeneous Section of Colonial America

           Not long after the great Puritan migration of 1620 to 1640, Massachusetts Bay enacted the strictest of immigration laws.33 Left to natural increase,

groups of settlers from the Bay Colony began to push out in various directions. Seeking better and cheaper land and greater independence of action, they

traveled west then north, along the New England river basins.34 By the end of the 18th century, nearly every New England valley and upland had been filled

with the sons and daughters of the East Anglican Puritan and Pilgrim Separatist. Thus, New England became the most homogeneous part of Colonial America,

while Massachusetts Bay became the parent colony of a great portion of New England.

           In light of this, New England self-government became a model for other colonies. The perseverance, prowess and spirit of independence of its

settlers proved an inspiration for others as well. For in the midst of these New England valleys and along its shores, could be found the most erudite

and challenging clergy,35 the mast efficient farmers and innovative mechanics, and the most skilled and daring seamen.36 Even her colonial architecture--the

town commons and village school--was a unique example of simplicity, unity and functional beauty.

           During the struggle for independence, it was the New England clergy that openly challenged the tyranny of the British Crown and its ministers'

policy of “taxation without consent.” It was from her fields that came the bulk of the fighting men for the patriot cause--with

Massachusetts furnishing more than any other, and the Yankee settled districts of upper New York second.37 It should not surprise us then that the British

army chose New York Harbor as its base of operation--it was both loyalist and pluralist, and pluralists rarely defy tyrants. It also should not surprise

us that the aim of the British army there was to severe New England from the remainder of the colonies, lest she influence them. Together, the Bible commonwealths

of New England and Virginia successfully led the Thirteen Colonies toward independence and a temporary liberty.

Pluralist Democracy at Enmity with Christian Liberty

           Pluralism is but an outgrowth of the “Melting Pot,” and democracy a companion to pluralism. All are "world friendly" and hostile to God. In

a "melting pot," diverse groups with no common theme, can only be welded together by the force and restraint of an absolute government, or by the sheer

will of the majority. Christian liberty, on the other hand, establishes exemption from the control, restraint or will of such a majority or minority.38

Liberty, in the true sense, can never be achieved where God is not sovereign. Because in democracy the majority is sovereign, it therefore is at enmity

with both liberty and God.

John Winthrop, governor of Massachusetts Bay, well understood the corruptible nature of man. As Winthrop understood the will of the majority without sovereignty

of God to be "mob rule," so Patrick Henry recognized monarchy without Godly principle as tyranny. In his much-noted conclusion of a stirring speech before

the Virginia delegates in March of 1775, Henry asked to be given "liberty or death," and not "democracy or death,'' as some revisionists have implied.39

Colonial Settlers came to Establish Christian Liberty

           Revisionists today look at history through a tinted prism of contemporary ideas, and not in the context of the times. The complete record of

events is often carefully edited, and key facts are omitted to modify the outcome of the story. In this regard, let us consider the often-used term, democracy.

Nowhere in the colonial charters or documents is the word used, nor is it mentioned in the Constitution. The term pluralism is not mentioned either, yet,

liberty is.

           In another reference, let us consider the records of early colonists like John Smith and Miles Standish. Both men risked their lives founding

colonies on these American shores. Both were renowned and valorous soldiers, and both served in the wars in Holland defending the Reformation. Captain

John Smith fought in many battles against the Turks in Europe; he later came with the first colonists to Jamestown and was captured by the Indians there.

Captain Miles Standish was superintendent of defenses at Plymouth; he entreated both friendly and hostile Indians and served on the governor's council

for 29 years.40.

           Yet, would these men have risked their lives to establish a sanctuary for the enemies of their God? Was it ever their intention to institute

a pluralist democracy? Were they so naive as to think that the enemies of their God would come to live peaceably among them? And, were they so short-sighted,

that they would have paved the way for Mohammedans, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and atheists to come and legislate their God out of the very institutions they

founded? To the contrary, their lives are a testimony that our early colonial settlers came to establish Christian Liberty and did so as a “stepping­stone”

for others of like-mind.41

Harsh and Exacting Conditions of Colonial Life

           In order to fully understand such a desire for civil and religious liberty, let us now consider the conditions under which most early colonists

came. First, the six-to-eight-week voyage to America was far from comfortable: ships were small and often ill-equipped; food and water were bad and sanitary

conditions deplorable. Dreaded diseases like scurvy, small-pox and typhus scourged the crowded immigrant ships. In fact, such conditions were so well-known

in Europe, that it sufficed to daunt the weak and cowardly. No wonder, British convicts, when given the choice of deportation or the gallows, often prayed

to be hanged.42

           Second, life in the colonial wilderness was equally harsh. Behind the cushion of modern living, few Americans are able to comprehend the exacting

conditions of early colonial life. Severe heat, cold, famine, disease and the dreaded tomahawk of the American Indian weeded out untold hundreds. At Jamestown,

Virginia, only 150 out of 900 persons remained at the end of the third year, and nearly three-fourths of the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth were laying

in their graves before the first year was over. Especially hard hit were the Pilgrim women, where it was recorded that only five of the eighteen married

women survived--most of whom were under twenty years of age.43

           Many had left comfortable homes in trim and well-ordered England to risk the dangers and hardships of pioneer life. The primeval American wilderness,

with its vast forests, brooding solitudes and climatic extremes, smote many newcomers with fear and sickness. Instinctively, they kept in touch for fellowship

and coordinated action.44 During the first winter in Jamestown, exposure and hardship brought serious illness upon the underfed colonists. At times not

even five men were able to bear arms and hunt, and but a handful of persons were able to care for the many sick throughout the colony. It was not long

before one half of them had died.45 Should we not marvel then as to why so many preferred the chains and plunder of Europe to American liberty? (Did not

Israel prefer the "leeks and onions" of Egypt to the wilderness?46)

 Eminent Leadership Begotten from Early

Colonial Population

           Overall, our early colonists were an exceptional type and of a high moral and physical fiber. By the latter half of the 18th century one of

the most remarkable assemblages of eminent leadership in recorded history emerged from this colonial pioneer stock. From a meager population of but two

million souls in 1776, America produced no fewer than ten eminent statesmen of genius,47 and scores of less noteworthy but equally determined personalities.

In fact, America may well have produced more eminent persons in proportion to her numbers, than any other civilization in recorded history—except for perhaps

Ancient Athens during the Golden Age of Pericles or the Davidic Kingdom of Old Palestine.48 Out of a teeming and pluralistic multitude of more than 240

million inhabitants. America today is unable to produce one distinguished statesman of genius!

Early America Uniform in Race, Religion and Language

           By 1790, the free, white American citizenry was largely a harmonious blend of nationalities and sects, uniform in race, religion and language.

Moreover, they were in possession of the richest and most salubrious country in the world.49 According to the census taken that year, the percent of national

origins were as follows:50

NATIONALITY

English 82.1%

Scotch 7.0%

German 5.6%

Dutch 2.5%

Irish 1.9%

French 0.6%

All other 0.3%

National Origins in terms of Racial Heritage

           If we were to analyze these national origins in terms of race, we would learn the following about America's early heritage. Out of a white population

of 2,810,248 in 1790 there were 2,345,844 of English descent-- thus, more than four-fifths of our white stock was directly of Anglo-Saxon ancestry.51 (Historian,

George Bancroft indicates the total white population higher at 3,177,257 in 1790.52)

           In the English we can find all three branches of the white race present in variable degrees. These three branches, derived after the Flood from

Noah's three sons, are the Shemitic, Japhetic and Hamitic. Twentieth century anthropologists, however, have renamed these three branches: the Nordic (Shemitic),

the Alpine or Slavic (Japhetic), and the Mediterranean (Hamitic) respectively. Today, they are, as a collective body, referred to as the white or Caucasian

Race, the latter of which has been broadened and misconstrued from its original context.53

           Thus, in regard to the English we have a distinct three-way combination, with the Alpine portion the least, yielding to a more definite and

overall Nordic character.

           Of those from the British Isles but of non-English descent, 7.0 percent was Scotch and 1.9 was Irish. Since the census was based on surnames,

those nationalities indicated as Scotch or Irish, most definitely included the Scotch-Irish, also known as the Ulster Scotch.54 The Scotch, being not much

different in racial composition than the English, had still less Alpine but a dash more Mediterranean, giving many their brunet coloring. In the smaller

group indicated as Irish, a sprinkling of South Irish existed, in which the Mediterranean element predominated.55 But, even with the South Irish, particularly

those from around Dublin, the fair and  Nordic appearance of many was the result of mixture with Danish, Norman and English immigrants to Ireland.

           In our largest non-British group, the Germans, the Alpine and Nordic elements were present often in equal amounts, but with the latter predominating.

The racial composition of the Dutch, though it had an Alpine admixture, was more purely Nordic.56

Considering our French immigrants, many were Huguenots and of a similar racial make-up to that of the Scotch and some of the Irish. Thus, in 1790, the

overall character of America was predominantly Nordic, with a small admixture of Mediterranean and Alpine.  

Considering the past migrations of people, the Nordic stock has generally showed itself to be venturesome, daring and inclined to pioneering. Historically,

the challenge of colonizing and forging a new nation has attracted this breed of person. If this be true, then the white population of the United States

by 1790 would have been even more Nordic than that of England itself.57 The innumerable Orientals, Arabs, Iranians and Haitians, and the mixed multitudes

of Latin Americans and Balkanized Slavs, which now occupy our major cities, were not considered as potential colonists by our colonial founders. Just their

presence was simply never imagined. Any advertising to lure immigrants to colonial America was done only in the European countries or districts previously

mentioned.

America the Un-melted Pot 1776 to 1882

           Even the later immigration from Europe during the 19thcentury did not affect the racial make-up of our Nation, but rather strengthened it. From

1820 up to 1882, American immigration was derived from three main sources: The United Kingdom (including Ireland), Germany and Scandinavia. Minor contingents

came from France, Switzerland and  Italy. 58 Prior to 1882 the “Melting Pot” in America remained a myth. It was virtually an "Un-melted Pot!" Thus, for

nearly 300 years, America possessed the most Nordic population outside of Scandinavia. It was the most Christian as well.

Theologians and Hirelings Fail to Maintain

True Christianity in America

           The issue of immigration and assimilation, in regard to race, is indeed important. We must be careful, however, not to substitute belief in

race for faith in our God--for that is just another form of idolatry, which can easily inflate a people with pride, vanity and conceit. If our theologians

and the hirelings in our churches had not allowed the practice of true Christianity to deteriorate, then surely our people would not seek such idolatry

in order to fill this spiritual void. The leaders of Jewry often understand this better than we realize. Consider the following words of 20th century playwright,

Israel Zangwill, a collaborator in the Zionist cause of Theodor Herzl:

All this Nordic nonsense, of which the only alleviation is that it rehabilitates the great German people, comes from the attempt to fill the gap left by

the collapse of Christianity, which its priests have failed to maintain. It is seeking to create a National God and of the most primitive species.(?) It

is time we Jews reasserted the Universal God, and the unity of civilization. It is time we stopped this attempt to make politics religion and helped make

religion politics. "Back to Christ" is the cry of the despairing thinkers of Europe. But Reason and Justice, Love, Mercy, were in the world before Christ,

(see John 1:2-3) and our cry is not so much "back to Moses" as back to these and their source. 59 (Note: Insertions by author.)

           Zangwill believed the ultimate goal of Jewish nationalism-­ and even Judaism--was the unity of all civilization.60 His aim, as well as that

of others, was to create a universal brotherhood, supposedly achieved through “love and mercy.” To that end, he turned to one country where, because of

its liberal immigration policy, he hoped this ideal would meet with success--America.61

Christian America not to be Yoked with Unbelievers

           Quite differently, Scripture clearly assures us that any nation not built upon the foundations of the Lord, Jesus Christ, will fair no better

than the Kingdom of Babel. Furthermore, it warns that Christian believers should not be yoked together with unbelievers, whether they be heathen, pluralistic,

anti-Christ, or of a "universal brotherhood." Accordingly, the Apostle Paul, during the first century A.D., warned members of the church of Corinth against

association with the immoral influences of that city's heathen and cosmopolitan atmosphere.

           InII Corinthians 6:14-18, he wrote:

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what

harmony has Christ with Belial (wickedness), or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? ...”Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,”

says the Lord…

AH: From the Scriptures for America Dragon Slayer newsletter, 2024 Vol. 12. To obtain the Dragon Slayer, email

preacher@sfaw.org