A few days ago now I received a response from Pastor John Weaver, one of the subjects of my article on interracial marriage. John was not pleased, and has written a long polemic. I answer all of the substance of it here, and many of the lesser points.
One thing that stands out strikingly to me is that throughout his 2,200+ word letter, John never once addresses the actual words we quoted from him, the substance of them, any reasonable aspect of it, or the issue of the people it has harmed. For some reason he avoids his words and the audio clip altogether. He does not seem interested in the facts that he called interracial marriage adultery, destroying the bonds of marriage, destroying the races that God desires to remain separate, etc., not to mention all the comments about America, blacks being excluded from “our posterity,” “white” culture, etc. Not a word of accountability or responsibility on all that.
Instead, what we read is a series of emotional pleas that assume John Weaver and his friends are victims of a vicious attack. Again, there is not a word about those degraded by their racist doctrines. Instead we hear about John’s personal issues, John’s liberty of conscience, blacks do it too, we have many black friends, how dare you, etc. In reality, it is much worse that this.
I am saddened by the fact that John does not seem interested in owning his words and addressing the core issue and the problem caused by it. Certainly in 2,200 words he could have made great strides at that. But there is not a word.
But ultimately, he and the reader should realize this is not about John Weaver. This is about the truth, those who have been maligned and wronged by an awful teaching, and the future of those who love and teach God’s law—theonomy and Christian reconstruction.
What follows is lengthy and written in a tit-for-tat way. There is no new ground covered here, although there is some new information that some probably did not know (Muhammad Ali’s whole story, for example). We address mostly emotional and fallacious distraction, deflection, blame shifting, straw men, diminishing the offense, etc. Anyone could respond to this easily, and many have already on social media. I cover it at length here for posterity’s sake, to be clear where we all stand, to be clear Weaver has no excuse or defense at this point and does not seem interested in making any, and so it cannot be said by the defenders of this unfortunate doctrine and those who give space for it that I failed to respond.
John sent this letter to me privately before it was posted publicly. The answers you are about to read to his factual errors and other mistakes were already provided in private in condensed form. He had a chance to correct the most obvious of them. He ignored all of it and chose to let this be published without correction in the slightest.
With these things in mind, let’s focus on what really matters, as we review John Weaver’s responses to me, and my replies.
The straw flies from the beginning
Your article was sent to me by numerous people. Interestingly, you did not send it to me. Thankfully, those who sent it knew me and knew of my ministry. I certainly learned some things from your article. First, if you had not pointed out that I was a “racist,” I would never have thought that concerning myself.
I did not call John a racist. I called his doctrine racist. I made this distinction purposefully and carefully. It is important. I weigh distinctions like this very importantly. A decent man can possibly hold mistaken positions, even prejudiced positions, without being a racist himself. With John, I am not sure, so I did not say.
John, however, by claiming I maligned him personally, positions himself as the victim here. He is not. The countless interracial couples that his doctrine labels as adulterers are the victims in all this. As you will see, John nowhere addresses these people, or shows any awareness of the severity of his error.
I thought that I was just a Christian that believed the Bible. I certainly have never considered myself a racist since I believe that God created the races and has a purpose for each race.
This is posturing as well. John knows very well his views are generally considered racist, and that while I have not yet, many people would indeed naturally conclude that he was a racist upon hearing his views. The guy has spoken in neoconfederate circles for decades, been spotlighted by the SPLC for years now for racism, and fended off accusations of racism probably his whole career. This is not news to him in any way. He specifically went out of his way in the very sermon clip at issue to say he was not being racist or even sounding racist. He was apparently conscious enough of the connection that he moved to dispel the point—at least by contradicting it, even if not proving it.
Second, I was shocked to learn that Dr. Peter Hammond who has done more for black people and preached to more black people than you have ever dreamed of doing, is also labeled a racist.
Same issue. I did not label Peter Hammond a racist. I wrote very clearly that his doctrine on interracial marriage is racist, and it is. But this is another attempt to play victim. Sorry, not allowing that here. Neither John nor Peter are being attacked here—just called out for doctrines that unrighteously condemn countless innocent couples. They can affirm them, deny them, or try to distract from the point. John seems well-exercised in the latter category.
I have known him for years, preached with him and fellowshipped with him and had never picked up a racist tone in his voice or a racist bone in his body.
I am not worried about his tone or his bones. I am concerned with the actual words Hammond wrote, the words that come out of Weaver’s mouth, the people wronged by them, and the people who tolerate all of it—all of which gets overlooked and ignored by this great number of distractions from the real issue.
Shall we judge by works?
It was a real shocker. I cannot help but wonder why he continues to be chased by ANC guerrillas, thrown into prisons, shot at with automatic weapons and threatened as he leads medical teams and others to minister in Africa. Those are mighty strange tactics for a racist of his caliber. Since he does not believe as you, are his life, ministry and mission work to be thrown into the garbage? Is he not worthy to be counted as a brother?
First, we don’t exonerate men’s false doctrine by their works, and we don’t determine the truth or goodness of their doctrines by what great works they may have done. Even if everything Peter Hammond and others say about his great works are true, that would not justify the condemnation of interracial marriages in the slightest. It would still be abominable—perhaps more so, because we would expect a great man of God to be more enlightened by Scripture and the love and vision of Christ, and more correctible when confronted.
What next, shall we have to suffer the teachings of the Mormons, too, or even the humanists because of what great works they’ve accomplished in the field, or because of the great sufferings they could list on their resumé? Shall we turn a blind eye to Muslim doctrines because they fought the Soviets in Afghanistan?
Second, this is not about merely believing differently. Were that the case, I could certainly find bigger targets (maybe even become a discernment ministry!). No, this is about a particular false teaching which condemns many innocent couples in a concrete and pernicious way.
When offenders minimize or distract from their offenses in such way, it not only diminishes the respect they would otherwise merit, it not only shows a lack of empathy and repentance, it increases the intensity of the shame thrust upon the abused. (See Martin Selbrede on Liberty from Church Abuse for a great explanation and outline of these types of responses by abusers.)
Third, again, I did not question Hammond’s personal faith. Weaver’s shift here to the suggestion that Hammond has been accounted as not a brother is yet another falsehood and distraction. Whether he is a brother or not may be decided elsewhere. I said that his false teaching is sinful and should render him unacceptable as a teacher until recanted. I stand by that.
Again, Hammond and Weaver are not victims here. Weaver’s letter tries to position them as such. But the victims are the countless people they have condemned with their false teaching. Weaver does not mention these, but instead distracts from them by puffing up the works of the offender.
How do you determine who is racist? How do you determine exactly that which is racism? Is there a standard?
Weaver wants to suggest I am acting like a “Pope” or judge, jury, and executioner. In other words, this is one more example of Weaver positioning himself as a victim—this time of my unfairness and tyranny! But yes, there is a standard. Scripture, of course. And the real problem here is legalism in regard to Scripture.
When a person imposes requirements that Scripture does not, we call that the sin of legalism. When a man imposes racial or ethnic barriers where Scripture does not, we call that type of legalism, among other things, racial prejudice. This is among the sins we call racism. When God allows something as good and man instead uses racial barriers to call it evil—whether “adultery” in Weaver’s phrase, or “a betrayal to God” in Hammond’s—then we rightly condemn that injurious legalism as the racial prejudice commonly called “racism.” Others may point to other standards, but John and I both know what ours is. We should not posture and pretend, nor should we exaggerate.
The Muhammad Ali fallacy (but blacks do it, too!)
Would you declare Cassius Clay, better known as Mohammed Ali a racist? Cassius Clay or Mohammed Ali advocated the purity of the races and did not believe in interracial marriage. You may find his comments here and here.
He did not believe in interracial marriage. He is black. Is he a racist? If he was, I wonder if he knew it. Maybe it is that only white pastors can be racist if they hold the same views.
Yes, Ali’s views were racially prejudiced as well, and just as wrong. Muhammad Ali was preaching the racially prejudiced views of the Nation of Islam. He was a pagan, not a Christian. His standard was the doctrines of Elijah Muhammad, not Jesus Christ and the Bible. To appeal to this standard of behavior, then, is rather pitiful on John Weaver’s part.
When Christian men like Pastor Weaver entrench themselves in their own legalistic views, they will find themselves running into the arms of pagans as common defense. It is no wonder that Ali himself was once invited to speak for a Ku Klux Klan rally. He boasted of the experience, preaching, “Black people should marry their own women!” The Klan rejoiced: “Yeah!!!!” They said, according to Ali, “You teach the rest of them n****rs that and everything’ll be alright.”
In his famous interview to which Weaver linked, Ali questioned interethnic marriage skeptically: “I’m sad? Because I want to blot out my race and lose my beautiful identity?” Even the heretofore light-hearted audience jeered at that one. Then things just got worse: “Who’d want to spot up yourself and kill your race?”
And just in case you think this is all a humorous joke from the notoriously flippant Ali, one article on this topic relates the starling reality of it:
In 1975, amid the frenzy over the impending “Thrilla in Manila,” his third title fight with Joe Frazier, Ali argued vehemently in a Playboy interview that interracial couples ought to be lynched. “A black man should be killed if he’s messing with a white woman,” he said. And it was the same for a white man making a pass at a black woman. “We’ll kill anybody who tries to mess around with our women.” But suppose the black woman wanted to be with the white man, the interviewer asked. “Then she dies,” Ali answered. “Kill her too.”
It is no wonder that Martin Luther King, Jr., who was in fact murdered for fighting for equal rights for blacks, fighting against, among other things, the very antimiscegenation views like Weaver and Hammond hold, called Ali a “champion of segregation.”
So again, I answer Pastor Weaver, yes, Ali’s views were racist.
It has nothing to do, therefore, with “Maybe it is that only white pastors can be racist.” Again, Pastor Weaver is not the victim here; Pastor Weaver is not the persecuted one. I find attempts at blame shifting and playing the victim card like this to be pitiful.
I would also remind everyone that “bad company ruins good morals” (1 Cor. 15:33). Likewise, those who hold immoral views will take pleasure in others who do as well (Rom. 1:32), and so bad morals may ruin good company as well. In other words, when you try to defend a pagan doctrine, you may find yourself locking arms with pagans. In fact, just consider that when Ali appeals to “God” in these passages, he means Allah, and you’ll see how far out of bounds Weaver has to go here.
Liberty of conscience versus license for legalism
One of your concerns is: “the prohibition on interracial marriage in the name of the Bible. It is this that most concerns me here.” Really? Have you ever heard of liberty of conscience? How about the priesthood of the believer? How about the fact that it is the Holy Spirit that enlightens, illuminates and exposes truth? Is it necessary that every pastor, preacher and Christian interpret the Bible as you? Is it possible to read the same passage and have varying interpretations? I wonder why not every one sees exactly the same way on every issue?
Let’s remember the issue here: John Weaver’s doctrine that “the amalgamation of races is a form of adultery,” etc. My concern as I stated it is not over someone’s personal beliefs in this regard, but their teaching from the pulpit by an ordained minister, and especially one who is entertained, respected, and heard within the same community as me.
This is about the teaching of sin. This is not about liberty of conscience. This is about an ordained minister in the pulpit calling evil good and good evil. That person should be withstood publicly.
Further, this is not something that was whispered in a corner, but publicly from a pulpit, and then posted on the internet. Granted, it appears that there have been attempts since the original posting to get it removed from the internet (I can understand why!), but it has not been. Even if it is eventually, that will not erase the fact that it had been published and then scrubbed—not recanted or retracted. Here’s the reality: this is public teaching, made public—published. It is fair game for criticism.
Any person preaching legalism and racist views from the pulpit, then publishing those views—that preacher does not get to hide behind “liberty of conscience” as a defense from open criticism. His views are public, and as a teacher of the word he should be held to a higher standard than others.
I find the appeal to liberty of conscience especially ironic in light of what follows:
You said: “The persistence of Christians today who would forbid interracial marriages on the grounds of race is very unfortunate. It is sin.” Sin is a violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). Would you please give chapter and verse, at least a hint of how not believing in interracial marriage is a violation of God’s law? Are we commanded to intermarry? If it is a sin to disbelieve it; there must be a clear command to either believe it or engage in it.
There is no verse that specifies any number of countless legalisms that a preacher could impose on people, but that hardly means they are justified, does it? That hardly could mean that a preacher should be allowed to deceive others or bind people’s consciences with it, does it? This attempt to shift the burden of proof in favor of any particular legalism will fail equally with the rest.
The issue here again is not in John Weaver’s privately held beliefs; it is in the racist legalism being preached publicly. The pulpit is the place for preaching God’s word—and word that is supposed to be universal truth, binding upon people’s consciences. Now when you are in the pulpit, you do have a choice to make regarding your privately held beliefs and liberty of conscience: if you believe that what you are preaching is universal truth and binding on consciences, then peach it wholeheartedly and say so. If, however, you believe that what you are preaching is a privately held belief that is not binding on people’s consciences, then you should say so. It should not go forth as the will of God, the word of God, and “from the Bible.” A minister must keep his private opinions to himself, or at least make it clear when he veers into private opinion.
If he does preach things as the Word of God, then he should be willing to own them publicly, defend them as he preached them, and own the consequences.
Further, the shifting of the burden carries interesting assumptions. I did not state that we are commanded to intermarry. My argument is that we are not forbidden to do so, and to impose that requirement upon believers is legalism. With the tragic and bloody history of our nation on this issue, it is a particularly egregious legalism to preach today.
The Bible, for example, also does not specify that we abstain from dancing, though many preachers have preached that dancing is a sin. If someone rejects this legalism, they are not required to point to a chapter and verse that says, “You may dance” or, “You must dance.” That is absurd. The individual Christian need only assert their liberty in Christ.
If a preacher preaches that making a million dollars is a form of covetousness and a sin, the saints need not find a verse that says, “you may be a millionaire,” or “Thou shalt.” If a preacher preaches that driving a car, eating meat, celebrating Easter or Christmas, listening to rock music, wearing makeup, women wearing pants or shorts, using Bible translations other than the King James, ad inifinitum, is a sin, the congregant is not required to go find a verse that specifies they may or must do such things in order to remain free. They need only to assert their Christian liberty and demand that anyone preaching otherwise prove their specific command from New Testament, biblical Christianity!
So it is with interethnic marriages. The Christian couple does not need to prove a particular verse that specifies, “You may ‘intermarry,’” or, “You must ‘intermarry.’” That is absurd. They need only assert their liberty in Christ to do so.
When the preacher goes the extra step and unfortunately preaches that some Christian freedom is in reality “adultery,” “a betrayal to God,” or violating one of the Ten Commandments, that preacher has abused his pulpit and committed the sin of legalism. He is creating sins that do not exist in Scripture. One need not prove a command to justify themselves, but only assert their Christian liberty.
This is why John Weaver’s appeal to liberty of conscience here is so pernicious: because it is his legalism that is robbing others of their liberty of conscience, demanding they prove their liberty or else they will stand convicted by the extrabiblical strictures he preaches. It is John Weaver who needs to learn how liberty of conscience works.
We can see this mentality further evidenced in what follows. Weaver asks,
Do we become more holy, godly and obedient by intermarrying? Do we preserve God’s created races by intermarrying?
These are poorly framed questions, but if we stop and understand underlying biblical doctrines properly, they can be answered in an edifying way.
In the first question, I suppose the intent is to ask if intermarrying is commanded in such a way that we are being obedient if we do it, fulfilling God’s will, and disobedient if we don’t. Of course, this is a straw man and not the point: see the immediate paragraphs above on legalism and Christian freedom.
Biblically speaking, however, if a Christian interethnic couple marries, they have the full potential of sanctification and love, etc. in that institution that any other Christian couple has. So, they can indeed become more holy, godly, and obedient by intermarrying. The person who calls such a marriage sin and adultery would be the one making unbiblical claims.
An interethnic marriage is just as much a picture of Christ and his Church (Eph. 5) as any other couple. Anyone who denies such is impugning both the couple and Christ himself who would bless such marriages.
In the second question, we do indeed preserve God’s “races” when we “intermarry,” because there is only one race—the human race. There is no normative command to preserve the “races,” or different ethnicities, in Scripture. Teaching otherwise is itself a racist doctrine. But when we look at biblical doctrine, Christians marrying Christians even of different ethnicities do indeed preserve and advance the race of mankind. So yes.
There are no perfect pastors, preachers or counselors in this life. There are no perfect CEOS or presidents of Christian organizations. Everyone has faults, failings and sins. No one has all knowledge and no one has perfect knowledge. God does not give everyone the same light, the same amount of light and He certainly does not give light to all at the same time. Each one is responsible to live according to the light that God gives him.
This is true, but it is no cover or justification for continuing to preach false and hurtful doctrine. Those especially who teach racist views, among other false doctrines, must be exposed, marked, and hopefully stopped, if possible, until they may possibly be corrected. God may or may not give them the full light on the matter; but if he does not, they ought not to be received as teachers.
You said: “I feel it is my duty to relate to readers my cognizance of such ministers close to my circles.” Since duty is based upon doctrine, where is the doctrine that gives you the right, authority and power to attack, malign and denigrate a belief that is not only historical but one that many believe is biblical.
What gives me the right and authority?
Answer: “Have you ever heard of liberty of conscience? How about the priesthood of the believer?”
—Pastor John Weaver
Also: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).
More than a mere personal disagreement
So, you disagree. So what?
I already answered the “so what” in my post. Did you miss this?
A lack of discernment on this issue constitutes an error significant enough that no proponent of such views should be entertained as teachers or leaders until repenting and having shown fruit of that repentance.
Etc.: see the conclusion to the original piece.
What if I felt it was my duty to expose your compromise on this subject and other subjects as well?
Go ahead. Maybe I’ll find I need to repent and change my views on something. I have an even better idea. John should read The Problem of Slavery in Christian America and help me expose the background to the racist views he preaches.
If I remember correctly, our Lord said in Matt. 18:15: Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Why did you not come to Peter Hammond and me? Why did you not contact us if you really believed that we had trespassed against you or God’s law? Why did you not seek to restore us? Why did you not come privately according to God’s law?
A few people have made this point. Many feel I should have come built a personal relationship with John Weaver first, then tried to persuade him. The truth is, this is not an inter-personal Matthew 18 case. Nevertheless, people have already done this anyway. I purposefully waited as others tried this. When they felt they had exhausted the attempt at persuasion (over a year and a half), and after John had tried to justify his view by sharing extensive material from a man who has published Christian Identity newsletters for decades, I had no qualm whatsoever about relating John’s public teachings to my readership.
Let’s be clear: I did not even think it was necessary to wait to begin with. The teaching is public. It was from the pulpit, recorded, and made public on the internet. A public response is fair game. I waited out of courtesy for others—personally, directly offended ones—who were trying. I have listened to scores of John’s sermons. I knew there was little hope he would be persuaded. But I waited anyway.
And again, this is not about John Weaver. He is not a victim here. I am far more concerned with the issue itself, the slandered interracial couples, the message sent by those in Christian Reconstruction in tolerating those who teach racist doctrines, and what little has been done about it to date.
Christian Identity and Christian character
You referred to Dr. Robert McCurry as a Christian Identity pastor. I have known Pastor McCurry for over 40 years. He is not now, nor has he ever been a Christian Identity pastor.
No, I said, “Christian Identity proponent.” Words and distinctions are important. I am not sure what characterizes McCurry’s pastorate, and that is not what is at issue. (Again, he is not the focus, but the teachings that harm many people wrongly.) We know what Christian Identity is—an extreme racist set of viewpoints. But what is a proponent? It is someone who promotes a particular goal or view. Does McCurry do this?
He has been a contributor to publications like Covenant Messenger, a newsletter put out by . . . wait for it . . . Christian Identity Ministries (see #304 for one example). If that is not enough, how about a whole newsletter edited and published by McCurry himself, hosted in its entirety by a Christian Identity organization?
I suppose the man could deny some of the key doctrines of Christian Identity and plead guilty-by-association only, but this level of cooperation for so long, with multiple people and organizations in multiple countries? That’s a conscious co-laborer, and a conscious co-laborer is a proponent in my book.
We could go further and detail some of the racial theories outlined in his “your eyes only” material that has been circulated—hint: Adam was white, and we’re not exactly certain where all these black and yellow things came from (they may not even be decedents of Adam). Is this not enough?
Moreover, the fact that Pastor Weaver confesses to his personal associations with this man for over forty years while he has published all this, and likewise that he has privately distributed some of McCurry’s more detailed material (that is not publicly available on the internet), is a witness against himself that speaks volumes.
You are using the same tactics as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
You mean the same SPLC that has declared me and American Vision a hate group for standing against homosexual marriage, etc.? (See, I got street cred, too!)
You endeavor to inflame, insinuate and even declare things that are patently false and untrue.
With the exception of one private document (I could easily dump online), I have said nothing about Weaver, Hammond, or McCurry which is not a direct quotation of their own words with extended contexts, or provable easily online. I want to know what exactly John Weaver here thinks is false. But to do so, he would have to address his own words, which he has not.
These accusations of patently false and untrue declarations are ridiculous, especially considering that nowhere in his letter does John Weaver once actually address the words that he himself said about interracial marriages being adultery. Not once! Not once, in all of these smokescreens and dust thrown in the air does the man own up to what he actually said of the races, adultery, blacks not being included in the “our posterity” of our Constitution, etc. Not once does he show any accountability for the extended words we quoted directly from him, and which anyone can hear by clicking through and listening to the clip. Not once does he address this or the millions of people implicated by his teaching about “adultery.”
Pastor McCurry has preached for 74 years. He has probably forgotten more than you will ever know.
Has he forgotten all the articles he published in Christian Identity newsletters and websites? I can remind him.
He had black people attend his church, he helped start black churches upon their request and he had a Go Ye ministry that sent teams into black neighborhoods to teach the Word of God and preach the gospel.
I am glad to hear this. But the charge is not that. It is about the views that have actually been expressed. How about addressing those? Again, good works don’t cover for false doctrine, and the “I’ve got many black friends” argument is threadbare.
It is an affront to such a godly man who has suffered much for the gospel and is now 88 years of age. If you think this is your duty to hurt, harm and seek to destroy a preacher of the gospel; you are mistaken.
Again, appeals to pity, etc. No one’s age or suffering is a justification for their misguided teachings. One man’s suffering can especially not cover another man’s—John Weaver’s—teaching. I don’t see how this is relevant except as an attempt to use emotionalism to distract from the issue. What next, a car accident with girl scouts and John Weaver showing up in sling and a neck brace?
Why not? Let’s make this all about John, his friend, and their personal beliefs and feelings:
If you think it is your duty to vilify and denounce the brethren for personal beliefs; you are mistaken. You are free to disagree with me and I am free to disagree with you. You may attack me all you wish, but how dare you publish such garbage and never have the courtesy to call Dr. McCurry. You do not know him and you owe him an apology.
It is rather unbelievable, to be honest. One more time: you are not the victims here. The people you have slandered are. You have not yet addressed your own words once.
Incidentally, for your information, I am not now nor have ever been a Christian Identity preacher.
I never said that John Weaver was such. Something tells me he’s in their rolodex, though (I would say Christmas card list, but they don’t go there).
My views are my own. They came from reading the Bible. Evidently, I am not reading from the same version as you. Evidently, I am also not allowed to hold a different view than you. If I do, I am pronounced a racist, a sinner and an abomination.
More pity party and exaggeration. Once more, I did not call him a racist, nor is this about personal views. Once more, Weaver refuses to address the actual words he said or take responsibility for those he has by them impugned.
You have taken a relative inane subject, declared it a sin and an abomination, and elevated it almost to the level of denying the Virgin Birth, blaspheming the Holy Spirit and denying the verbal inspiration of the Bible.
Relatively inane? You may think so, but I know many who know better. Paul withstood Peter to his face in Antioch over his dissimulation over racial divides. Was that an inane issue? With all that was going on around the Roman Empire at the time, was Peter’s personal decision really the thing to make an issue then? Yes, in fact, Paul makes it clear that the Gospel itself was at stake, because there were greater issues tied to the racial issue. And when a man today argues that an interethnic Christian couple would be committing adultery and destroying God’s will and creation by marrying—that man is committing a whole lot more than a mere personal decision. He is engaging in much more than a surface racial sentence. He is perverting God’s word and God’s justice to the harm and injustice of many people. To the extent that marriage is a reflection of Christ and His Bride, one may even say that this perverted, racist doctrine even challenges the gospel itself. If a husband-wife relationship is to reflect that Christ-Church relationship, degrading interracial marriage would be to say that a white Christ cannot marry a black church, etc. Oh, I know John did not say that; but that’s the theology latent in this racist doctrine he teaches.
Considering all of this, it is utterly absurd when he says,
My view on marriage does not affect you in any way and neither does it affect or harm anyone else.
Tell that to the countless couples his doctrine labels as adulterers. Tell that to the blacks he excluded from “our posterity.” Tell that to all those not properly a part of what he says is not just Christian culture, but “white Christian culture.”
I sent a young man to American Vision for materials and help. In fact, I have sent many there for materials over the years. I was just told by one of them that you suggested to him that “he needed to repent for being my friend.” Really! How low can you stoop?
Who told John this nonsense? And he just believed it? I mean, the more I now consider his doctrines, the more I lean toward saying something like that; but the truth is that I have never said to anyone that they must repent of being John’s friend (perhaps something I said was misconstrued?). I have actually told people the opposite of that: that I did not expect them to break personal ties with John (this was several days ago). I hope he is surrounded by friends—real friends, who hound him with the truth.
But again, as is consistent with the rest of this letter, John Weaver seems focused on making John Weaver out to be the victim here. I am sorry, but my focus is elsewhere still.
It seems to me that there are so many enemies that we have to fight, need to fight and must fight; it is an absolute shame that we waste our time and end up fighting each other. Christians are about the only group I know that try to slay the walking wounded. You have had your say and I must add, you did not express any brotherly kindness to call me, contact me or ask me anything, so now; please leave me alone that I may attend to the ministry that God has called me to and the one that I have endeavored to fulfill for the last 53 years.
Again, let us all pity poor John. John is the wounded one. John is harassed. John has been treated unkindly. Who’s a victim here?
I suppose your article and my response means that I will not be receiving any more emails from you asking for financial support.
American Vision uses a standard double-opt-in email list system. No one anywhere receives any email from American Vision who did not purposefully sign up for it at some point. John Weaver must have subscribed. He can unsubscribe anytime he wants.
However, as far as I can tell from the records available to me, John Weaver is one of many thousands of people who read American Vision material for years without having had to donate a cent.* That’s fine! We are a ministry and we survive largely on donations, but we also recognize many cannot give and we make all of our articles and many of our resources, including some whole books, available online for free. But we do need donations to survive and continue, so subscribers will continue to see us ask in the future.
(*Update: this article previously could have been read to suggest that John has not donated to us ever. This is only true since 2012.)