# Mixed Race Marriage Resources?



## SEAGOON

Hi All,

I never thought I'd be asking this, but can anyone recommend any resources (online, papers, books, etc.) on the acceptability of mixed-race marriages amongst believers?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Zenas

I don't have any papers or resources, but I would like to hear anyone argue against their acceptability. If we are all crafted in the _imago dei_ then I don't see an issue.


----------



## RamistThomist

John Piper has some stuff on it. probably look at his web site.


----------



## SolaGratia

The Bible


----------



## Greg

Ivanhoe said:


> John Piper has some stuff on it. probably look at his web site.



Yes, right here


----------



## DMcFadden

Interracial Marriage - Answers in Genesis
‘Interracial’ marriage?
Inter-racial marriage: is it biblical?


----------



## Ivan

Last I checked there was one race on planet earth...the human race.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the links that have been posted. Yes the short answer is the bible. Here is the answer I had to give to my former Pastor and mentor on the Warfield List when he pointed out the same thing:

"Although this is a no-brainer for you and I (Rahab, Ruth, Tamar, Moses' Ethiopian wife, the fact we are all "one blood", and descended from one family, etc. ad infinitum), you have to remember that there are still American evangelicals who have been taught all their lives that marriages between blacks and whites are sinful. Both you and I also know of Korean Christians who don't believe Koreans should marry non-Koreans and that to do so is sinful. Bob Jones U. didn't admit blacks till 1971, and then only married ones, and then in 1975 promulgated a "no-interracial dating" policy till 2000. Both of us also know of things in the writings of theological giants like Dabney and Thornwell that make us wince and shake our heads. Simply put, for years down here, sound theology has been trumped by deeply-ingrained racial attitudes. 

Anyway, I'm in the process of putting together a bible-study on courtship and marriage, and as odd as this sounds, having to make an argument that inter-racial marriage is biblical and reformed and not the result of political correctness in the church.

It really is an entirely different kettle of fish down here in the south, even in a federal colony like Fayetteville. I'm sure other Southern Ministers on the list could tell you similar stories. You guys up in Yankee land may not have the bible-belt home-court advantage (although that does really extend to crazy Calvinists like us) but you do have a few other less perceptible things working in your favor."


----------



## Zenas

There isn't a single elder on my session that I could point to that would say interacial marriage wasn't sinful, except my pastor. And I think my pastor would say it was a bad idea.


----------



## DMcFadden

One of the reasons why our congregation mirrors the demographics of the community (45% Asian, 35% Hispanic, the rest African-American and clear is that we are known as a place that welcomes racially mixed couples. In our church, it is so common that I have never heard anyone make a negative comment.

When my second son went off to college, I assumed that he would probably not marry a white woman. During high school, every girl he took to a dance was of some other ethnic group (Asian, Indian, Hispanic, Black) than white. As it turns out, he married a white girl with some trace of Native American (doesn't everybody in OK claim to be "seomwhat" Native American?).

I believe that there are places where it would not be acceptable. However, in Southern California, it has not been an issue recently that I'm aware of anyhow.


----------



## Thomas2007

Would it even be possible possible for someone to make an argument against miscegenation without being accused of being a hate monger and other vile things?

I sincerely doubt that the issue can even be discussed objectively.


----------



## Zenas

You would first have to establish that the imago dei is somehow conveyed to other ethnicities in a fashion that differentiates them so much as to render them wholly seperate from other ethnicities. Then you would have to come up with a negative command from Scripture prohibiting the mixing between the two. 

People attempted to do this by equating black people with the "sinful race of Cain". The only problem with this is it's devoid of proof, scholarship, authority, etc. and is a result of racist esiegesis.

The only inter-mixing I'm aware of that we are told to avoid is to not become un-equally yoked, i.e. don't marry an unbeliever. I, for one, will be adopting, presumably outside of my ethnicity, and I do hope that any Reformed family would be open to their son or daughter marrying my son or daughter, despite their differing ethnicity. Likewise, I would not be opposed to my biological son or daughter marrying someone of an ethnicity other than Anglo.


----------



## Thomas2007

Zenas said:


> You would first have to establish that the imago dei is somehow conveyed to other ethnicities in a fashion that differentiates them so much as to render them wholly seperate from other ethnicities. Then you would have to come up with a negative command from Scripture prohibiting the mixing between the two.



Why? I've never heard anyone make that type of argument - it's ludricrous on it's face. Everyone is a descendent from Adam, correct? Why would someone have to make that type of argument?


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Thomas,



Thomas2007 said:


> Would it even be possible possible for someone to make an argument against miscegenation without being accused of being a hate monger and other vile things?
> 
> I sincerely doubt that the issue can even be discussed objectively.



I sincerely promise not to call you hateful things if you want to try. In fact it would be helpful to me before I have to do it in teaching.

Please go ahead and explain why from a scriptural standpoint, the marriage between a believing American and a believing Korean is sinful.

I'll look forward to your reply, but since the baby is changed and has gone back to sleep, I'm off back to bed, I'll have to read it tomorrow.

- Andy


----------



## bob

> It really is an entirely different kettle of fish down here in the south, even in a federal colony like Fayetteville. I'm sure other Southern Ministers on the list could tell you similar stories. You guys up in Yankee land may not have the bible-belt home-court advantage (although that does really extend to crazy Calvinists like us) but you do have a few other less perceptible things working in your favor."



I live in the northern midwest and I think there would be a significant portion of the population that would frown on interracial marriage. This mindset was carried into the church I attended as a lad, although I believe in this case the mindset was more a regional tradition than an ecclesiastical one. A good percentage of this area was originally settled by German immigrants, who tend to have a strong sense of national and racial pride, so perhaps these tendencies flow in part from that tradition, although I am speculating at this point.

The arguments I have heard made in regard to forbidding mixed races marrying flow along a couple lines. I have heard folks postulate from a faulty exegesis of "be not unequally yoked". I have also heard arguments made from nature. "If God wanted to order mankind in the context of races, why should we desire to eliminate them through mixed marriage?" Some would draw principles from some of the rather strong passages dealing with the Israelites mingling with other nations.

This issue has a tendency to be rather explosive. In a society increasingly sensitive to sharing opinions about race, it is difficult to speak strongly one way or another. I have friends that have entered into interracial marriages and friends who think it wrong. I have observed critical comments to be directed toward both mindsets!

The question I have is this: is it wrong for a Christian to have a sense of national or ethnic pride if it does not flow from a discriminatory context? For example, could parents instruct their children to marry within racial or national lines because they are proud of their heritage and kinship?


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Bob,

Just a few thoughts, let me start with a few practical applications of the "you should should your pride in your ethnicity and only marry within your kin" mindset. And then move to a theological consideration.

First, instructing your children to marry within ethnic lines inevitable communicates strong disapproval for failing to do so, and a sense that the people outside of our ethnicity _no matter how good a Christian they might be_ are in some sense not quite as good. Non-discriminatory ethnic pride, while a nice idea just doesn't occur in a fallen world. Indeed to favor one thing or person over another is to discriminate between them. If we apply the teaching to the bible, it makes Miriam and Aaron right in some sense to disapprove not only of Moses' marriage to the Cushite (Ethiopian) but also to Zipporah. It also would have meant the townsfolk and kin of Ruth, far from blessing her, would have strongly disapproved of Boaz's decision to marry her and would have encouraged him instead to choose an eligible female from good Jewish stock. Indeed, she would have been an unsuitable marriage partner for _any_ of the men of Bethlehem. Naomi would have had to answer her speech with something along the lines of, "Well that's sweet honey, but the my people/your people thing isn't going to work out. We Jews have a certain ethnic pride and don't approve of marriage and such to Moabites. So much for being an ancestor of Jesus, or even being fully integrated into Jewish society. Actually, the example itself is moot, as Boaz wouldn't have existed. His father Salmon, being properly instructed by his parents, would have known Rahab would have been an unsuitable wife as well. So that union wouldn't have taken place. 

Also, trying to instill a sense of absolute fellowship, so that your children eagerly play with, eat with, have sleep-overs with, and do everything with Christian children from other ethnic backgrounds and then telling them _you should not_ court, date, or marry them will inevitably break down. Show them they are one in Christ and let them live that out, and they will realize that their fellow Christians are suitable marriage partners regardless of skin color, accent, or eye shape. The only way you'll manage to keep the "we don't marry them" barrier up in the modern world, is if you eliminate or sharply limit their access to ethnically different Christian children and do all you can to instill a sense that ethnicity comes first and Christianity second. 

Also, theologically the ethnic pride argument undermines the essential oneness of the Covenant community, it forgets that we are sojourners and pilgrims here on earth, that our citizenship is in heaven, not a particular earthly country, and that the real division is between believers and unbelievers. For instance, in reminding Christians that they were sojourners "just passing through" earth on the way to heaven, Peter states:

"having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation."

Those, "gentiles" would have been their fellow countrymen, and yet he separates Christians from them. The church is the primary bond.

To see proof that we really are one in every sense with our fellow believers, regardless of ethnicity, just read the words of Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22. The middle wall of separation is gone, God has built one man from the two, they were aliens, but now they are fellow citizens of the same country and one holy temple without gaps, dividing walls, and separations:



> 11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh -- who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands --
> 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
> 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
> 14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
> 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
> 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
> 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.
> 18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
> 19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
> 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,
> 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
> 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.


Frankly, also I'd say in our country, finding a strong, godly, orthodox Christian mate is hard enough. Further limiting that dwindling field for the sake of racial pride is just silly. Would you really rather your child married a a marginally pious antinomian pentecostal because they were American Caucasian than a strong godly Reformed Asian? I know I wouldn't. 

Personally, I had the heartbreaking experience of watching a beautiful sister in Christ marry an unbelieving State Trooper, because her Christian mother liked him, knew his family, and because as she put it, "I just haven't met any strong Christian black men and I'm tired of waiting." I said to her, "But you KNOW and FELLOWSHIP with strong Christian single men who work at this company!" Her answer was, "But they're all white, my church and my family, would never approve of that." She she took the marriage "they approved of" telling herself that he sometimes went to church and might become a Christian, and after the honeymoon period faded found herself treated poorly and cheated on by the person her people were proud of. So much for the fruits of obeying the dictates of "ethnic pride".


----------



## Thomas2007

I've got to prepare for my lesson tomorrow evening - it will take me the rest of the day and evening, so I'll have to take this up and discuss it next week.


----------



## raekwon

Ohhh, this'll be a fun thread to watch... especially as a "miscegenator" myself.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

DMcFadden said:


> When my second son went off to college, I assumed that he would probably not marry a white woman. During high school, every girl he took to a dance was of some other ethnic group (Asian, Indian, Hispanic, Black) than white.


its the ethnic food that did him in. try some dhall, and some lamb curry


----------



## Gloria

raekwon said:


> Ohhh, this'll be a fun thread to watch... especially as a "miscegenator" myself.



I thought and said the sammmmmme thing although I'm not a "miscegenator."


----------



## Anton Bruckner

as long as a christian is not marrying an unbeliever we should all mind our own business and wish them a prosperous future.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Slippery said:


> as long as a christian is not marrying an unbeliever we should all mind our own business and wish them a prosperous future.



Precisely; the only absolute requirement is that people marry "in the Lord", other things are matters of prudence.


----------



## raekwon

Zenas said:


> There isn't a single elder on my session that I could point to that would say interacial marriage wasn't sinful, except my pastor. And I think my pastor would say it was a bad idea.



Sounds like a great reason to start looking elsewhere!


----------



## Zenas

Nothing ever got solved by running away. I love the community and the people in my church. One day, I hope to be on the session and there are several men who are fairly to solidly grounded who will probably be on whether I am or not, and they would probably not frown on this type of thing either.

*As a side note: *My fiance' and I are both fine with adopting an Asian child and I definately want to adopt an Asian girl due to China's history for treatment of females, but I would like to be open to the idea of adopting a little black boy or girl as well or instead. She's not so hot on this issue though; not because she thinks it's wrong to do, but out of fear of the child being an outcast and difficult to marry off. There just aren't that many black Reformed men and women in the area. Almost all black folks are members of COGIC churches, which make my skin crawl and I'm not entirely sure they are churches of the Lord. She also fears they will be mocked for having white parents and rejected by white kids and black kids. I can see her point, but I'm not sensitive to the issue. My outlook is "nuts" to everyone else and if someone doesn't like it, tough. People already won't like us for serving the Lord, but should we really pile up racial tension on them? That and we'd probably cause huge problems in our church due to the above mentioned elders. What do ya'll think?


----------



## Josiah

Zenas said:


> Nothing ever got solved by running away. I love the community and the people in my church. One day, I hope to be on the session and there are several men who are fairly to solidly grounded who will probably be on whether I am or not, and they would probably not frown on this type of thing either.
> 
> *As a side note: *My fiance' and I are both fine with adopting an Asian child and I definately want to adopt an Asian girl due to China's history for treatment of females, but I would like to be open to the idea of adopting a little black boy or girl as well or instead. She's not so hot on this issue though; not because she thinks it's wrong to do, but out of fear of the child being an outcast and difficult to marry off. There just aren't that many black Reformed men and women in the area. Almost all black folks are members of COGIC churches, which make my skin crawl and I'm not entirely sure they are churches of the Lord. She also fears they will be mocked for having white parents and rejected by white kids and black kids. I can see her point, but I'm not sensitive to the issue. My outlook is "nuts" to everyone else and if someone doesn't like it, tough. People already won't like us for serving the Lord, but should we really pile up racial tension on them? That and we'd probably cause huge problems in our church due to the above mentioned elders. What do ya'll think?





I agree with what you said here:


Zenas said:


> I can see her point, but I'm not sensitive to the issue. My outlook is "nuts" to everyone else and if someone doesn't like it, tough. People already won't like us for serving the Lord, but should we really pile up racial tension on them?



When my Wife and I first started attending our church, we noticed that many of the covenant children were adopted and were of different races. We immediately noticed that they were just as normal and well adjusted as any other kids in the church from what we had seen. 

I wouldnt worry much about what others will think in church. Who knows, maybe this is exactly why you are where you are


----------



## raekwon

Zenas said:


> Nothing ever got solved by running away. I love the community and the people in my church. One day, I hope to be on the session and there are several men who are fairly to solidly grounded who will probably be on whether I am or not, and they would probably not frown on this type of thing either.



My comment was at least partly tongue-in-cheek, brother. However, I do think that it bears some serious consideration if you believe (or know) that the very shepherds of your church think in such a way. How apt would you (or any of us) be to stay if you found that your elders were, say . . . FV sympathizers? This is no less of a serious issue.


----------



## kvanlaan

I was the guy described earlier (dating UN-style in highschool) but married a wonderful woman of mostly German (but, of course, some native american) extraction.

This thread is of great interest to me because our children are Caucasian (biological), Chinese, and soon Ethiopian. 

Think of your average TR church (in the Dutch community) and the demographic makeup - white, white, and more white. Who are my children going to marry, if more 'traditional' attitudes prevail?

Put your backs into it, folks. I am all ears.


----------



## kvanlaan

> My comment was at least partly tongue-in-cheek, brother. However, I do think that it bears some serious consideration if you believe (or know) that the very shepherds of your church think in such a way. How apt would you (or any of us) be to stay if you found that your elders were, say . . . FV sympathizers? This is no less of a serious issue.



Agreed. Can you, as an office bearer, sit in good conscience under their authority? Big question.


----------



## kvanlaan

My wife and I were just discussing this further. We know many American-born XXXXXX (insert ethnicity here) who marry within ethnic/social background. Almost all the Chinese-Americans that we know here have married Chinese-Americans. They might date white, but they marry Chinese.

The biggest concern is for our boys. It seems like marriage of a white male to an Asian woman is fairly acceptable (and even the other way around). And marriage to a black woman seems fairly acceptable too. But a black _male_ is another issue entirely. We've heard horror stories of peoples' behaviour towards adopted Ethiopian sons of white families, attitudes that are simply unacceptable today and which evaporated into sweetness once again when the boors in question found out that the black sons were from a white family - that somehow made them 'OK'.


----------



## KMK

I thought BJU's stance on inter-racial marraige stemmed somehow from Dispensationalism. Do they see inter-racial marraige as another step toward the one-world religion/culture?

There is a branch of Christian Reconstructionists called 'kinists' who claim to be Reformed Christians. They talk like Reformers. They extol Calvin. I think they practice paedocommunion. I think they are Agrarians also. I never spent enough time at their blogs to figure out where their 'kinism' comes from. I am not going to disclose the main blog site because they should not get any more attention. Also, I think their website was hacked and destroyed by some people who were angry at their seeming 'white supremecism'.

If you really want to delve into their beliefs do so at your own risk. Just google 'kinism'.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Here's a good argument: Marriage between ethnic groups makes for good looking kids.

Seriously, have you looked at some of the pics of our Grandparents who were purely Irish or Finnish or Prussian in my case? Not too easy on the eyes.

The mix of even those ethnic groups even among my European ancestry made for some nicer noses and less squatness.

Then I married a woman who is half-Puerto Rican and, Voila!, my kids are really cute.


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> I thought BJU's stance on inter-racial marraige stemmed somehow from Dispensationalism. Do they see inter-racial marraige as another step toward the one-world religion/culture?
> 
> There is a branch of Christian Reconstructionists called 'kinists' who claim to be Reformed Christians. They talk like Reformers. They extol Calvin. I think they practice paedocommunion. I think they are Agrarians also. I never spent enough time at their blogs to figure out where their 'kinism' comes from. I am not going to disclose the main blog site because they should not get any more attention. Also, I think their website was hacked and destroyed by some people who were angry at their seeming 'white supremecism'.
> 
> If you really want to delve into their beliefs do so at your own risk. Just google 'kinism'.



That is true but Christian Recon should not be identified with kinism (Rushdoony was an old world Asian and Bahnsen adopted non-white kids, I believe).


----------



## raekwon

SemperFideles said:


> Here's a good argument: Marriage between ethnic groups makes for good looking kids.



SERIOUSLY.
















(heh heh)


----------



## RamistThomist

raekwon said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good argument: Marriage between ethnic groups makes for good looking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (heh heh)
Click to expand...


Your kids? Cute. I chuckled at the last picture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

raekwon said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good argument: Marriage between ethnic groups makes for good looking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (heh heh)
Click to expand...


Check and Mate!

SEAGOON: Just post those pics in a Powerpoint slide during your class on interracial marriage and then say: "Any questions?"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Some others for your slideshow:
http://L..smugmug.com/photos/256171224_GXgHy-L.jpg

http://L..smugmug.com/photos/250718925_kUzD2-L.jpg

Look, here's one to show that the Curse has been overthown in Christ:

http://L..smugmug.com/photos/256190102_LAupR-L.jpg


----------



## raekwon

Ivanhoe said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good argument: Marriage between ethnic groups makes for good looking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (heh heh)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your kids? Cute. I chuckled at the last picture.
Click to expand...


Yep (all the same kid, though).


----------



## RamistThomist

raekwon said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (heh heh)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your kids? Cute. I chuckled at the last picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep (all the same kid, though).
Click to expand...


How old is she?


----------



## Theoretical

raekwon said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good argument: Marriage between ethnic groups makes for good looking kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SERIOUSLY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (heh heh)
Click to expand...



My assistant pastor is Indian (as in India, not Native American) and he married a blue eyed brunette, and they have some of the cutest kids I've ever seen.


----------



## raekwon

Ivanhoe said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your kids? Cute. I chuckled at the last picture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep (all the same kid, though).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old is she?
Click to expand...


She'll be 5 (!!!) in June.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Ken,



KMK said:


> I thought BJU's stance on inter-racial marraige stemmed somehow from Dispensationalism. Do they see inter-racial marraige as another step toward the one-world religion/culture?



From the 2000 Bob Jones interview on Larry King Live when they announced the policy was being lifted:



> KING: You are a private institution, you don't get the tax benefit because -- but you are entitled to the thing -- I'm trying to find out why you have the rule.
> 
> JONES: Yes. We have the rule, because it was a part of a bigger -- it was a -- it wasn't the rule itself. We can't point to a verse in the Bible that says you shouldn't date or marry inter-racial.
> 
> KING: You can't back it up?
> 
> JONES: No, we can't back it up with a verse from the Bible. We never have tried to, we have never tried to do that. *But we have said there is a principle here, an overriding principle of the one world government.* But let me tell you how insignificant this is. Students never hear it preached. There have been four, five, six generations of students that graduated from there have never heard this preached in our chapel or taught in our school. To us...



Generally, in theology the moment you say "we can't point to a verse in the bible, but there is this 'principle'..." you should realize you are working from something other than the principle of Sola Scriptura you supposedly adhere to.


----------



## Kevin

OK. I'll jump in. (with fear & trembling)

The essential point against inter-racial marriage is the overall record of scripture does not "support" it. By this is meant that although no verse says "thou shalt not marry an asian woman, neither shalt thy son marry a native american, not thy daughter marry an african.." etc. We do not see the practice encouraged and endorsed in the main.

The primary arguments I have seen are as follows.

1) It is contrary to Gods eschatalogical purpose for mankind.

a. God made Adam.
b. Out of one blood God made all nations.
c. this division was an example of Gods creative ability
d. He did this for the purpose of promoting his will i.e. cover the earth & the gospel.
c. attempts to frustrate this are attempts to thwart God.
d. God intends that the gospel shall go to "all nations".
e. nations qua nations shall be judged on the last day. Thus it is Gods plan that they (nations) still exist.

therefore; attempts to eliminate the nations is an attempt to thwart Gods plan. Inter-racial marriage is an attempt to eliminate the nations thus it is rebellion against God.

2) It is contrary to the examples of the Patriarchs

a) Abraham was a "man after Gods own heart".
b) Abraham knew the gospel & believed it.
c) Abraham had many "believing" women who could have married Isaac. & yet
d) He sent for a woman of his own nation. Who was not yet a believer.

a) Isaac was a believer.
b) etc.

a) Isaac Vs Esau
b) one trusted God the other did not.
c) one was ruled by passion, etc.
d) one (esau) married "local" the other (jacob) married with in the "nation"

3) The biblical example (normative?) of national law restricted it to the point of (virtual) non-existence.

a) Mixed race children had restricted social & religious rights till the 10th generation.
b) Land could only be held by members of the nation. 
c) Political rights were limited to members of the nation.

4) All of the Fathers held to this view.

No father of the reformed church. No father of the western church. No father of the early church. No father of the apostolic church. None held to the idea of mixed race marriage.

5) It is contrary to the fith commandment.

the command to honour, requires that children produce offspring that are "like" their grandparents.

6) To argue otherwise (only "faith" matters) is dualistic.

It is a seperation of the "spiritual" from the "physical". Faith (spirit) is primary. Body (race) is secondary. And only the "spiritual" reallly matters.


I am sure there are other arguments that I have not heard of, however these are the primary ones against inter-racial marriage. As far as I know. None of these trumps a photo of a cute kid. But they all need to be addressed in my opinion.


----------



## timmopussycat

Ivanhoe said:


> That is true but Christian Recon should not be identified with kinism (Rushdoony was an old world Asian and Bahnsen adopted non-white kids, I believe).



Bahnsen and his wife adopted a Korean daughter.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Kevin,

Before I offer a point by point critique of this on either Sunday night or Monday (unless someone else beats me to it of course - no sense reinventing the wheel), I wanted to ask a few questions. If you didn't write this yourself, I won't expect you to get the answers to me, but I wanted to try first on the off chance that you did.

First, what verses are you appealing to in section 3? I sense for instance 3a is attempting to appeal to Deut. 23:2 but that verse is actually speaking of illegitimate offspring, i.e. Bastards as the KJV puts it, not mixed race kids, and throughout there is a confusion of ethnic nation and the assembly of the Lord which was entered into by faith. For instance, were 3A & 3B actually true then BOAZ COULDN'T HAVE BEEN A LANDOWNER as he was the mixed race offspring of Salmon and Rahab (a Canaanite) when clearly he was one of Bethlehem's wealthiest and most respected landowners. 

Second, where are you getting the evidence for four? You do realize all one has to do is provide one instance of a father approving of Ruth's marriage to Boaz or Rahab to Salmon and the universal argument fails? I can do that without much difficulty. I've heard this argument before, but usually it is based on the assumption that approving of mixed-race marriages is a modern liberal doctrine and that therefore every Conservative churchman who wrote before say the civil rights act must have been against it. 

Third, can you explain your exegesis of the Fifth Commandment and perhaps give some supporting examples from other commentators? I ask because in all my time reading and commenting on the Commandments I've never encountered anything remotely like this idea. 

Fourth, you understand that the separation of believers from unbelievers is not a gnostic principle, right? Also would you argue that we are closer to our countrymen than to other members of the body of Christ who are not from our country? Would we agree that Jews and Gentiles for instance, were closer to their own countrymen than one another and should have stayed separate in the church?

Thanks in advance for your answers, it really will help me to interact intelligently.

- Andy




Kevin said:


> OK. I'll jump in. (with fear & trembling)
> 
> The essential point against inter-racial marriage is the overall record of scripture does not "support" it. By this is meant that although no verse says "thou shalt not marry an asian woman, neither shalt thy son marry a native american, not thy daughter marry an african.." etc. We do not see the practice encouraged and endorsed in the main.
> 
> The primary arguments I have seen are as follows.
> 
> 1) It is contrary to Gods eschatalogical purpose for mankind.
> 
> a. God made Adam.
> b. Out of one blood God made all nations.
> c. this division was an example of Gods creative ability
> d. He did this for the purpose of promoting his will i.e. cover the earth & the gospel.
> c. attempts to frustrate this are attempts to thwart God.
> d. God intends that the gospel shall go to "all nations".
> e. nations qua nations shall be judged on the last day. Thus it is Gods plan that they (nations) still exist.
> 
> therefore; attempts to eliminate the nations is an attempt to thwart Gods plan. Inter-racial marriage is an attempt to eliminate the nations thus it is rebellion against God.
> 
> 2) It is contrary to the examples of the Patriarchs
> 
> a) Abraham was a "man after Gods own heart".
> b) Abraham knew the gospel & believed it.
> c) Abraham had many "believing" women who could have married Isaac. & yet
> d) He sent for a woman of his own nation. Who was not yet a believer.
> 
> a) Isaac was a believer.
> b) etc.
> 
> a) Isaac Vs Esau
> b) one trusted God the other did not.
> c) one was ruled by passion, etc.
> d) one (esau) married "local" the other (jacob) married with in the "nation"
> 
> 3) The biblical example (normative?) of national law restricted it to the point of (virtual) non-existence.
> 
> a) Mixed race children had restricted social & religious rights till the 10th generation.
> b) Land could only be held by members of the nation.
> c) Political rights were limited to members of the nation.
> 
> 4) All of the Fathers held to this view.
> 
> No father of the reformed church. No father of the western church. No father of the early church. No father of the apostolic church. None held to the idea of mixed race marriage.
> 
> 5) It is contrary to the fith commandment.
> 
> the command to honour, requires that children produce offspring that are "like" their grandparents.
> 
> 6) To argue otherwise (only "faith" matters) is dualistic.
> 
> It is a seperation of the "spiritual" from the "physical". Faith (spirit) is primary. Body (race) is secondary. And only the "spiritual" reallly matters.
> 
> 
> I am sure there are other arguments that I have not heard of, however these are the primary ones against inter-racial marriage. As far as I know. None of these trumps a photo of a cute kid. But they all need to be addressed in my opinion.


----------



## Kevin

Hi Pastor Webb. This not my own simply my understanding of the view put forward by the "unnamed web site".

Personaly I find 1 & 2 the most convincing/ best point.

3 depends on the full/proper meaning of "mamzer".

4 is often a wrangle over individual cases. i.e was Moses wife "african" in the modern sense of the world? Ruth was a desendent of Lot & thus a "cousin", etc.

5 is normaly just asserted. Or an appeal is made to "would your grand
father want you to do this?"

6 the use of the "dualism" charge is normaly made in response to advocates of miscegenation. i.e. they see themselves as "spiritual" & thus are able to transend the mundane "physical" realities of racial/ethnic differences

If you would like the "horses mouth" send me a pm & I will send you the link.


----------



## kvanlaan

Rae, that's a beautiful little girl, and she looks to have such a sweet little personality (with enough 'twinkle' to keep things lively). 

You've been blessed, brother.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I'm sorry, I'm just shaking my head over the past couple of days in disbelief that we STILL have people HERE of all places that hold such a view (anti-inter-"racial" marriage).

You DO realise the Scots were considered a "different race" than the English, right? The Welsh were a different nation than the Danish. It only in recent times became about "colour" (of which we are all the same colour of differing shades). 

My children run the gamut on colouring and they are full blooded to eachother. Oh, they are American. If you study history far enough back you find that EVERY NATION has a blend of other nations, etc. Still no "one world colour or culture".


----------



## Anton Bruckner

SemperFideles said:


> Some others for your slideshow:
> 
> 
> http://L..smugmug.com/photos/256190102_LAupR-L.jpg


is that a real snake????????????????


----------



## RamistThomist

Probably. I was working at a gas statin a few years ago and some girl came in with a snake like that wrapped around her neck. Freaked me out because teh snake kept looking at me funny.

Back to the topic...

On one hand the Bible does warn the people against "mixed marriages," and they do include other races. But it can't be made to say that they don't want tthe belieer to marry the other race just because he is another race (Boaz and Ruth were of different races). It goes back a level to culture. Culture, Klineanism notwithstanding, is intricately tied to religion. Those from a different culture (be they white, brown, or purple) will bring different religious values with them. These values can be death to a person's religion, family, and society.

Now, for some obvious but likely-to-be-missed inferences from the above:

1). White people are capable of bringing anti-christian values from an anti-Christian culture (see modern-day Europe and the whore on the seven hills, namely the European Union).

2). As regards any other "race," see above. 

3). The real sticky point is not race, then, but culture. Culture, as Van Til so aptly stated, is "religion externalized."

4). But, it must be stressed, the gospel transcends culture. 

5). Apropos 3 and 4, the real discussions need to be on those levels. If someone's culture brings with it different religious values, then it is a no, regarldess of pigment. If the religious beliefs are not compromised by culture, then yes.


----------



## kvanlaan

I don't understand the whole 'racial' thing. Period. There is neither slave nor free, Greek nor Jew. Philip did not do a double-take when he came upon the Ethiopian. I'm not much on Jesus as a social rights crusader, but I can't find where He points us in any direction in this regard except to be blind to color. If we are focused on Christ, how is it that we even notice color? If culture is _that much_ of an issue, are we perhaps too much in the world and not enough in Him in this respect?

I know I've posted it elsewhere before, but I'll never forget my little Hannah seeing what I believe was a Benneton commercial (can't quite recall) with a little European girl and a little African girl running and playing together. 

Her only question about that scene was whether or not they were sisters. 

Hannah is dirty blond and hazel-eyed (and looks very northern European), her older sister Esther is black haired and brown-eyed (classic northern Han Chinese). In her world there is no reason why a sister cannot be black or Chinese while she's white - she just can't comprehend why that is strange. Our girls are already begging us to adopt girls from Ethiopia - they want more sisters and just don't see color. Should it be any other way?

(Re-reading this, it sounds ridiculously naive. However, if we are modern-day Puritans, should we not be ruthless in rooting out cultural biases - especially those which muddy the waters on what racial relations _should biblically be_?)


----------



## Anton Bruckner

kvanlaan said:


> Her only question about that scene was whether or not they were sisters.
> 
> Hannah is dirty blond and hazel-eyed (and looks very northern European), her older sister Esther is black haired and brown-eyed (classic northern Han Chinese). In her world there is no reason why a sister cannot be black or Chinese while she's white - she just can't comprehend why that is strange. Our girls are already begging us to adopt girls from Ethiopia - they want more sisters and just don't see color. Should it be any other way?


congrats on a job well done. God's grace has been made manifest in the unity and love of your family across races.

On a light note you are a prime candidate for the Oprah Winfrey Show.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Ivanhoe said:


> Now, for some obvious but likely-to-be-missed inferences from the above:
> 
> 1). White people are capable of bringing anti-christian values from an anti-Christian culture (see modern-day Europe and the whore on the seven hills, namely the European Union).
> 
> 2). As regards any other "race," see above.
> 
> 3). The real sticky point is not race, then, but culture. Culture, as Van Til so aptly stated, is "religion externalized."
> 
> 4). But, it must be stressed, the gospel transcends culture.
> 
> 5). Apropos 3 and 4, the real discussions need to be on those levels. If someone's culture brings with it different religious values, then it is a no, regarldess of pigment. If the religious beliefs are not compromised by culture, then yes.


well said.


----------



## py3ak

Rae, your little girl is one of the happiest sights I've seen in a long time.


----------



## kvanlaan

> On a light note you are a prime candidate for the Oprah Winfrey Show.



Interesting you should say that. I was flying home for my mother's funeral a few months ago when I started chatting with the person beside me. I eventually told her the story of the family, the children, the boys coming from Ethiopia, etc. and it turns out she was a producer for a Canadian news show called W5. She actually gave me her card so that they can do a segment on us when we get back. We are more than a little hesitant... She seemed nice enough but our family's inner workings being made public sort of scares me. Brings to mind images of social workers showing up after it airs and 'investigating'. :shudder:


----------



## SRoper

kvanlaan said:


> There is neither slave nor free, Greek nor Jew.



Minor quibble, if egalitarians can't appeal to Gal. 3:28 to support a complete lack of distinction between the sexes, then we can't use it to support a complete lack of distinction between nations.


----------



## RamistThomist

SRoper said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is neither slave nor free, Greek nor Jew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minor quibble, if egalitarians can't appeal to Gal. 3:28 to support a complete lack of distinction between the sexes, then we can't use it to support a complete lack of distinction between nations.
Click to expand...


That is true, and any good kinist can catch one on that. In fact, to be consistent, then that verse also teaches there are no fundamental distinctions between man and woman, making the ideal Christian some sort of androgynous being.

Don't worry. I am not a kinist. I have been attacked by them in the past. End disclaimer.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Minor quibble, if egalitarians can't appeal to Gal. 3:28 to support a complete lack of distinction between the sexes, then we can't use it to support a complete lack of distinction between nations.



Fair enough. But given the explicit and specific language used elsewhere by Paul, it is readily apparent that he differentiates between the sexes but I do not find anything of a similar vein in his treatment of races. 

And if you think you can call me a 'kinist' and get away with it, well, I'll, I'll, I'll have to go look it up and see what on earth you're talking about.


----------



## RamistThomist

kvanlaan said:


> Minor quibble, if egalitarians can't appeal to Gal. 3:28 to support a complete lack of distinction between the sexes, then we can't use it to support a complete lack of distinction between nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. But given the explicit and specific language used elsewhere by Paul, it is readily apparent that he differentiates between the sexes but I do not find anything of a similar vein in his treatment of races.
> 
> And if you think you can call me a 'kinist' and get away with it, well, I'll, I'll, I'll have to go look it up and see what on earth you're talking about.
Click to expand...


I hate to quibble (again) but Paul was not above using what we would today call racial/etnic slurs. See what he calls the Cretans. Now, he doesn't say that one race is ontologically superior to another, so Paul can't be called a racist. Nor, along with the tenor of the thread, would he proscribe fellowship on the base of race. If NPP taught us anything, it is this very point in Galatians.


----------



## Pilgrim

Kevin said:


> Hi Pastor Webb. This not my own simply my understanding of the view put forward by the "unnamed web site".
> 
> Personaly I find 1 & 2 the most convincing/ best point.
> 
> 3 depends on the full/proper meaning of "mamzer".
> 
> 4 is often a wrangle over individual cases. i.e was Moses wife "african" in the modern sense of the world? Ruth was a desendent of Lot & thus a "cousin", etc.
> 
> 5 is normaly just asserted. Or an appeal is made to "would your grand
> father want you to do this?"
> 
> 6 the use of the "dualism" charge is normaly made in response to advocates of miscegenation. i.e. they see themselves as "spiritual" & thus are able to transend the mundane "physical" realities of racial/ethnic differences
> 
> If you would like the "horses mouth" send me a pm & I will send you the link.



Brother,

Does what you posted represent your views, or were you just attempting to generate some discussion on the issue? With the internet being what it is and given the nature of the topic, I think making it clear one way or another may be helpful lest your position be misunderstood.


----------



## kvanlaan

Ah, we do love to quibble, don't we? (Just kidding, I enjoy the quibbles.)

So they're lazy and liars and evil, who isn't?  

Thing is, he was quoting Epimenides - he was telling Titus that it was wise to watch his step because there was a great reputation there for shifty behaviour (their own people admitted and seemed to almost glory in it!). He obviously thought they were worth the Gospel; he is not discounting them out of hand in the use of this phrase. Also, with regard to those true converts among them, do you think he would advise against marriage to any one of their people (not the principle of marriage, but specifically marriage to a Christian Cretan) based on race? If so, he is kicking the legs out from under the power of the Gospel and destroying its ability to make a new creation. Thus I have a hard time giving this phrase the relevance to the question at hand that you are.


----------



## RamistThomist

kvanlaan said:


> Ah, we do love to quibble, don't we? (Just kidding, I enjoy the quibbles.)
> 
> So they're lazy and liars and evil, who isn't?
> 
> Thing is, he was quoting Epimenides - he was telling Titus that it was wise to watch his step because there was a great reputation there for shifty behaviour. He obviously thought they were worth the Gospel; he is not discounting them out of hand in the use of this phrase. Also, with regard to those true converts among them, *do you think he would advise against marriage to any one of their people (not the principle of marriage, but specifically marriage to a Christian Cretan) based on race?* If so, he is kicking the legs out from under the power of the Gospel and destroying its ability to make a new creation. Thus I have a hard time giving this phrase the relevance to the question at hand that you are.



I am not advising against marriage of another race (nor do I think St Paul is). My posts above should demonstrate that. But that doesn't preclude that St Paul made what modern folk would call an ethnic slur.


----------



## kvanlaan

If I was a famous poet from Nashville (more than this, really - I think Epimenides was ascribed more influence than we would a simple poet these days) and wrote a poem on the lack of industry and general slovenly nature of Nashville-ans, as well as the abundance of pickpockets, and then you told someone you knew to watch his step in Nashville because of what the Illustrious Poet Laureat/General Social Commentator/Nashville-native Kevin wrote about them, would you be making a racial slur? I don't see how that could be counted as a racial slur.

As for the marriage issue, I did take that too far, and I don't think you were advocating that previously.


----------



## RamistThomist

kvanlaan said:


> If I was a famous poet from Nashville (more than this, really - I think Epimenides was ascribed more influence than we would a simple poet these days) and wrote a poem on the lack of industry and general slovenly nature of Nashville-ans, as well as the abundance of pickpockets, and then you told someone you knew to watch his step in Nashville because of what the Illustrious Poet Laureat/General Social Commentator/Nashville-native Kevin wrote about them, would you be making a racial slur? I don't see how that could be counted as a racial slur.
> 
> As for the marriage issue, I did take that too far, and I don't think you were advocating that previously.



Nashville isn't its own nationality/ethnic group.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Nashville isn't its own nationality/ethnic group.



Says you.  

OK, make it Iceland then.


----------



## kvanlaan

Or, and here's a wild and crazy idea, let's use the fictional island of "Crete" as the example instead of Nashville...


----------



## RamistThomist

kvanlaan said:


> Nashville isn't its own nationality/ethnic group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says you.
> 
> OK, make it Iceland then.
Click to expand...


In that case, yes, I believe it would be an ethnic slur.


----------



## kvanlaan

Please expand on that, if you would.


----------



## RamistThomist

kvanlaan said:


> Please expand on that, if you would.



Premise 1: Paul identified an ethnic group (Cretans).
Premise 2: Paul made a derogatory remark about the group of Cretans, a slur if you will.
-----------------------
Conclusion: Paul made an ethnic slur (P1 & P2).


----------



## Thomas2007

*Bowing out*

Dear Pastor Webb,

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this matter with you. I appreciate your willingness to try. However, I have changed my mind about discussing it. I don't feel that there is enough Confessional Unity where the matter of the lawful government of genealogies can be discussed in an edifying manner.

Although I didn't take a stand or make any arguments, I did ask questions concerning the negative proposition. I'm certainly sorry if I caused offense to any and would ask your forgiveness for not being more considerate of my duty to not offend the brethern.

My time to partake in this board is very limited and I want to try to be a blessing to my brethern and not cause offense or create divisions. While I am passionate about dwelling in unity of the truth, men have to have ears to hear with, before they can ever discuss anything offering reproof and correction from Scripture. This issue is too emotionally charged where any, me included, probably have ears to hear the other where anyone is going to be substantively edified. It is my goal in life to glorify our Lord and attempt to live conscientiously in submission to his revealed truth - as best as I can understand it. If I'm in error or in sin, I certainly want to be corrected, but I also want to be able to have the ears to hear that correction with and not be required to start out with a dogmatic defense of a position or be driven to a polemical one.

For everything there is a season, this doesn't seem to be the right season to me to begin to discuss something that is going to be interpreted by many inconsistent with any attempt to discuss it objectively. We can discuss the disposition of the immortal soul of men more objectively and openly without potential offense than we can the temporal institution of marriage. I don't see how I can honor Christ in this endeavor.

So, if you will kindly accept it, I would like to bow out of the discussion.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## kvanlaan

P1: Paul identified an ethnic group (Cretans).
P2: Paul quoted an 'authority' on Cretans, who was likewise a Cretan. 

If Homer said that the people of Chios or Smyrna (whichever he was actually from) were cheats, lazy and liars, I think we would give that a good deal of weight (were we alive at that time) when looking at travelling there. It is his hometown, and such advice would not be taken lightly.

Thus I would say that Paul was giving a judicious warning, not making an ethnic slur.

In any case, IF it were an ethnic slur, how does this imply that Paul/we should differentiate between ethnicities by 'innate' characteristics (that is the meat of the argument, is it not)? And surely he is talking about unconverted, unregenerate Cretans, not believers.


----------



## RamistThomist

kvanlaan said:


> In any case, IF it were an ethnic slur, how does this imply that Paul/we should differentiate between ethnicities by 'innate' characteristics (that is the meat of the argument, is it not)? And surely he is talking about unconverted, unregenerate Cretans, not believers.



I don't know. Since I don't differentiate by innate qualities, I have never given it much thought.


----------



## RamistThomist

Another thing to consider,
The term "racist" is a Marxist/Leninist term invented by Trotsky. It is used to perpetuate class struggle. How do you think Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton stay in business and relevance?

In many ways, the charge of racism is a powerful tool for political terrorism. If the PC establishment wants to silence someone, call him a "racist." His career is immediately destroyed. 

So I am actually thankful for this discussion here. I love my black brethren. I hate how the PC establishment uses them for political ends all the while keeping many of them in poverty. I have no problems with interracial marriage, although I think there is more criteria than just "well, they are both believers."


----------



## LadyFlynt

There is always more criteria than "they are both believers"...preferably they complement eachother


----------



## kvanlaan

Exactly - Mr Chalk and Miss Cheese are both believers. But they should not marry, as they are not compatible. However, the fact that they are of different races should not be a factor in that decision.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Ivanhoe said:


> I think there is more criteria than just "well, they are both believers."


when one says that they are both believers it doesn't mean simply believism, it means being believers and having the same spiritual values, maturity and walking in accordance with the commandments of God etc. i.e it doesn't mean a black pentecostal man should marry an hispanic presbyterian woman, nor does it mean that a 10 times married white man who became a believer should marry a black believer. Nor does it mean a brother who is battling alcoholism should be married.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Slippery said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is more criteria than just "well, they are both believers."
> 
> 
> 
> when one says that they are both believers it doesn't mean simply believism, it means being believers and having the same spiritual values, maturity and walking in accordance with the commandments of God etc. i.e it doesn't mean a black pentecostal man should marry an hispanic presbyterian woman, nor does it mean that a 10 times married white man who became a believer should marry a black believer. Nor does it mean a brother who is battling alcoholism should be married.
Click to expand...


How about simply a "pentecostal man shouldn't marry a presbyterian woman and vise versa" and "a woman shouldn't marry a 10 times married man and vise versa". Where does "black, hispanic, and white" play into it at all?


----------



## BobVigneault

Jacob is so right here. The problems withing this argument only come about because of the misguided. and even malevolent, mis-labeling of skin shade. Race is an illusion, race is based on evolutionary theory. As has been pointed out their are only two races, the children of Adam and the children of Christ. Culture and societal bias are factors that ought to be considered but there is no biblical teaching regarding marriage and skin shade.





Ivanhoe said:


> Another thing to consider,
> The term "racist" is a Marxist/Leninist term invented by Trotsky. It is used to perpetuate class struggle. How do you think Je$ Jack and Al stay in business and relevance?
> 
> In many ways, the charge of racism is a powerful tool for political terrorism. If the PC establishment wants to silence someone, call him a "racist." His career is immediately destroyed.
> 
> So I am actually thankful for this discussion here. I love my black brethren. I hate how the PC establishment uses them for political ends all the while keeping many of them in poverty. I have no problems with interracial marriage, although I think there is more criteria than just "well, they are both believers."


----------



## Civbert

Zenas said:


> ... She's not so hot on this issue though; not because she thinks it's wrong to do, but out of fear of the child being an outcast and difficult to marry off. There just aren't that many black Reformed men and women in the area.



All other things being equal, I'd marry off any of my white daughters to a solid reformed black man rather than to a nice church-going white Arminian boy any-day. Not only are good Reformed black men rare, so are any Reformed men. I don't know what the ratio of single reformed men to women is, but I have three daughters, and I would really like them to find solid Reformed men to marry. There are lots of other considerations, but faith is the most critical. I expect that whatever happens, they might need to go outside my local area to find a good husband.


P.S. I hope the pictures posted don't accurately represent the girl/boy ratio of reformed families! It looks like if I include my own, its 8 to 1, girls to boys! Do we have to become Mormons or something! We need more reformed boys.


----------



## Civbert

Ivanhoe said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please expand on that, if you would.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Premise 1: Paul identified an ethnic group (Cretans).
> Premise 2: Paul made a derogatory remark about the group of Cretans, a slur if you will.
> -----------------------
> Conclusion: Paul made an ethnic slur (P1 & P2).
Click to expand...



I looked up ethnic, thinking it had to do with mainly with race. But it's also about cultural groups. This could be the Irish verses the Welsh (common race, different cultures and nationalities). But Paul is really considering the reputation of the people in a particular city/state. Yes? This seems then to be directed more specifically to a culture, than a racial group. Ethnic groups can imply common race, religion, and/or nationality. The term seems too broad to apply to Cretans. Saying that Paul's remarks were a ethnic slur might imply more than Paul was commenting on.


----------



## Pilgrim

Ivan said:


> Last I checked there was one race on planet earth...the human race.



There are two. The children of God and the children of the devil. 1 John 3:10


----------



## Civbert

Thomas2007 said:


> Would it even be possible possible for someone to make an argument against miscegenation without being accused of being a hate monger and other vile things?
> 
> I sincerely doubt that the issue can even be discussed objectively.



Thomas has bowed out. But I'm currious what the argument would be. 

If there was a clear Scriptural argument against interracial marriage, I would go with what Scripture says. I would never consider letting my daughters marry outside their race _if_ the Bible said it was a sin. But as far as I can tell, Scripture does not say this, or even imply this. So given that I am skeptical that there is even the slightest reasonable argument against interracial marriage given by Scripture - I am curious what this argument might be. 

I am open to being corrected by Scripture - but the argument (against interracial marriage) would have to be very strong to counter where the Scripture seems contrary to this. Can anyone point me to this argument?


----------



## Pilgrim

Civbert said:


> Thomas2007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it even be possible possible for someone to make an argument against miscegenation without being accused of being a hate monger and other vile things?
> 
> I sincerely doubt that the issue can even be discussed objectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas has bowed out. But I'm currious what the argument would be.
> 
> If there was a clear Scriptural argument against interracial marriage, I would go with what Scripture says. I would never consider letting my daughters marry outside their race _if_ the Bible said it was a sin. But as far as I can tell, Scripture does not say this, or even imply this. So given that I am skeptical that there is even the slightest reasonable argument against interracial marriage given by Scripture - I am curious what this argument might be.
> 
> I am open to being corrected by Scripture - but the argument (against interracial marriage) would have to be very strong to counter where the Scripture seems contrary to this. Can anyone point me to this argument?
Click to expand...


Some would say that it's impossible to preach the whole counsel of God "without being accused of being a hate monger and other vile things." But I take it as a recognition that this is not a first order issue and trust that Thomas wouldn't feel the same way about the gospel. 

Perhaps the bowing out here is akin to "better to be thought a fool and remain silent rather than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." If that's the concern, then I would submit that those who are inclined to believe that will already believe it anyway because of what has already been written, (i.e. he hasn't remained silent) and arguably the case looks even weaker due to the failure to give a rationale for the viewpoint that is admittedly held.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Thomas,

Sure, I don't really have much time for discussion these days either, hence my very limited participation online here. I'll try to post a fuller response to your earlier post, I have to admit that several of the points seem to require that one buys into an exegesis that seems to be that of the author and possibly his compatriots - for instance, I tried but have not been able to find anyone who holds to his view of the 5th commandment.

Anyway, I'll try to post a brief response to all of the points if time allows today. 

I would like to point out though Thomas that I'm not motivated in this by the desire to conform to the culture, or to be politically or even ecclesiastically correct. I've spent most of my life swimming upstream, and generally get worried when a majority are in agreement with me. I really do believe however, that an objection to cross-cultural marriages between believers is unsupportable biblically. It's simply undeniable that Christ had blessed cross-cultural marriages in his genealogy, that Moses married outside his "race" and that the thrust of the NT would indicate that the son of Jewish Christians marrying the son of Gentile Christians would not have been a problem. 

- Andy








Thomas2007 said:


> Dear Pastor Webb,
> 
> Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this matter with you. I appreciate your willingness to try. However, I have changed my mind about discussing it. I don't feel that there is enough Confessional Unity where the matter of the lawful government of genealogies can be discussed in an edifying manner.
> 
> Although I didn't take a stand or make any arguments, I did ask questions concerning the negative proposition. I'm certainly sorry if I caused offense to any and would ask your forgiveness for not being more considerate of my duty to not offend the brethern.
> 
> My time to partake in this board is very limited and I want to try to be a blessing to my brethern and not cause offense or create divisions. While I am passionate about dwelling in unity of the truth, men have to have ears to hear with, before they can ever discuss anything offering reproof and correction from Scripture. This issue is too emotionally charged where any, me included, probably have ears to hear the other where anyone is going to be substantively edified. It is my goal in life to glorify our Lord and attempt to live conscientiously in submission to his revealed truth - as best as I can understand it. If I'm in error or in sin, I certainly want to be corrected, but I also want to be able to have the ears to hear that correction with and not be required to start out with a dogmatic defense of a position or be driven to a polemical one.
> 
> For everything there is a season, this doesn't seem to be the right season to me to begin to discuss something that is going to be interpreted by many inconsistent with any attempt to discuss it objectively. We can discuss the disposition of the immortal soul of men more objectively and openly without potential offense than we can the temporal institution of marriage. I don't see how I can honor Christ in this endeavor.
> 
> So, if you will kindly accept it, I would like to bow out of the discussion.
> 
> Cordially,
> 
> Thomas


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SEAGOON said:


> It's simply undeniable that Christ had blessed cross-cultural marriages in his genealogy, that Moses married outside his "race" and that the thrust of the NT would indicate that *the son of Jewish Christians marrying the son of Gentile Christians would not have been a problem.*




Andrew,
Your fingers got mixed up when you were typing. 


raekwon said:


> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ever got solved by running away. I love the community and the people in my church. One day, I hope to be on the session and there are several men who are fairly to solidly grounded who will probably be on whether I am or not, and they would probably not frown on this type of thing either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comment was at least partly tongue-in-cheek, brother. However, I do think that it bears some serious consideration if you believe (or know) that the very shepherds of your church think in such a way. How apt would you (or any of us) be to stay if you found that your elders were, say . . . FV sympathizers? This is no less of a serious issue.
Click to expand...


I disagree with this. Justification is what the church stands upon or falls. Not someone's beliefs about mixed culture or ethnic beliefs about mixed marriages. 

I actually would be more afraid of an Elder who placed this issue of mixed marriages on the same level of soteriology. It is getting the cart before the horse and expecting it to steer straight with the stirrups on backwards.


----------



## raekwon

PuritanCovenanter said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply undeniable that Christ had blessed cross-cultural marriages in his genealogy, that Moses married outside his "race" and that the thrust of the NT would indicate that *the son of Jewish Christians marrying the son of Gentile Christians would not have been a problem.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew,
> Your fingers got mixed up when you typing.
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zenas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ever got solved by running away. I love the community and the people in my church. One day, I hope to be on the session and there are several men who are fairly to solidly grounded who will probably be on whether I am or not, and they would probably not frown on this type of thing either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comment was at least partly tongue-in-cheek, brother. However, I do think that it bears some serious consideration if you believe (or know) that the very shepherds of your church think in such a way. How apt would you (or any of us) be to stay if you found that your elders were, say . . . FV sympathizers? This is no less of a serious issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with this. Justification is what the church stands upon or falls. Not someone's beliefs about mixed culture or ethnic beliefs about mixed marriages.
> 
> I actually would be more afraid of having someone who placed this issue of mixed marriages on the same level of soteriology. Aren't you an Elder?
Click to expand...


I am indeed.

It seems that I need to expound upon what I am and am not saying here. I'm _not_ saying that the singular issue of "mixed marriages" is as important as the vital (yet broad) category of soteriology. What I _am_ saying is that racial harmony and reconciliation is indeed a Gospel issue (along with a Sola Scriptura issue), and if the shepherds of a church consider "mixed marriages" *sinful*, it may be a very strong indication that they don't understand the very Gospel and Bible that they've been charged with defending and teaching.

(Saying that a mixed marriage in a certain cultural context may be difficult or a "bad idea" is a different matter.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is my few cents. 

And you all may not like what I am going to say. I hope I am not offending anyone here. 

I have been around the Church since 1981. I have seen fathers put restraints on their kids on many issues. I know some parents who wouldn't desire their kids to marry others because they listen to the devil's music and have an uppity attitude. And for some reason the children still secretly go out on dates with and marry these kinds of persons. 

I personally have friends who are in mixed marriages. Some are strained and some are great. The President of the Bible College I attended for a short time was an Elder in my Church. He is Black as the ace of Spades and his wife is white as you can get. They are beautiful together. 

I married a white woman who was supposedly theologically aligned with me. She apostated and we divorced. 

Even though I do not think one skin color makes one more acceptable before God and that I know we are all image bearers of God I still hope my boys marry within the caucasian part of our Human race. I have enjoyed having my boys all resemble me. When people see my boys they know who they belong to. I enjoy this. And I am not so sure this is sin. 

I also hate.... and I mean hate the Rap community. It has infested all skin colors, but it is mainly a black thing. I hate the culture it comes from. It is degrading and worse than any of the Rock and Roll I use to listen to. I can't stand pulling into a gas station and hearing the F word and Ho pounded out of the speakers. This started 15 years ago and it is terrible. I agree the Drug infested Rock culture that I grew up in is almost as bad. And I don't want my kids to marry into either culture. 

After saying the above I will enjoy whatever choices my boys make when they come of age. I will not be overly disappointed if they marry good godly black women. It is really up to God and His sovereign choice. It would be sin if it was Gods will for them to be in a mixed marriage and they were not. It just is not my first choice for them. It isn't my choice for myself either. Another reason is that white women appeal to me more than black women. 

Well enough rambling. 

Be Encouraged,


----------



## raekwon

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here is my few cents.
> 
> And you all may not like what I am going to say. I hope I am not offending anyone here.
> 
> I have been around the Church since 1981. I have seen fathers put restraints on their kids on many issues. I know some parents who wouldn't desire their kids to marry others because they listen to the devil's music and have an uppity attitude. And for some reason the children still secretly go out on dates with and marry these kinds of persons.
> 
> I personally have friends who are in mixed marriages. Some are strained and some are great. The President of the Bible College I attended for a short time was an Elder in my Church. He is Black as the ace of Spades and his wife is white as you can get. They are beautiful together.
> 
> I married a white woman who was supposedly theologically aligned with me. She apostated and we divorced.
> 
> Even though I do not think one skin color makes one more acceptable before God and that we are all image bearers of God I still hope my boys marry within the caucasian part of our Human race. I have enjoyed having my boys all resemble me. When people see my boys they know who they belong to. I enjoy this. And I am not so sure this is sin.



On its face, I don't think that such a desire is sinful either. Of course (as with all desires, even objectively good ones), it's possible that it could be motivated by sinful attitudes or thoughts. I can't make a judgment either way from where I sit.  My concern is raised when professing Christians consider it sinful to marry someone of a different skin color. It's a different matter.

And I don't think that it's bad to enjoy that your children can be visibly identified by others as yours. I guess I would personally just consider that (physical resemblance) of pretty low import on the list of characteristics that let people know that my children are mine. Their demeanor, behavior, love for God and people, etc are higher on that list, and independent of how much or little they look like me.

(Incidentally, despite their difference in skintone, folks have pretty readily recognized that my daughter is an almost spitting image of my wife.) 



> I also hate.... and I mean hate the Rap community. It has infested all skin colors, but it is mainly a black thing. I hate the culture it comes from. It is degrading and worse than any of the Rock and Roll I use to listen to. I can't stand pulling into a gas station and hearing the F word and Ho pounded out of the speakers. This started 15 years ago and it is terrible. I agree the Drug infested Rock culture that I grew up in is almost as bad. And I don't want my kids to marry into either culture.



And it looks like you recognize that those cultures are not equal to the skin colors largely represented there, so that's good. I agree with your assessments of both the hip-hop and rock cultures (at least they way they're largely portrayed), and at the same time, I think that both can be -- and are being -- redeemed through the Gospel. But yeah... as far as it depends on me, my little girl will end up with neither a thug nor a guitar-toting party animal.



> After saying the above I will enjoy whatever choices my boys make when they come of age. I will not be overly disappointed if they marry good godly black women. It is really up to God and His sovereign choice. It would be sin if it was Gods will for them to be in a mixed marriage and they were not. It just is not my first choice for them. It isn't my choice for myself either. Another reason is that white women appeal to me more than black women.
> 
> Well enough rambling.
> 
> Be Encouraged,



Good enough.


----------



## SolaScriptura

SEAGOON said:


> I'm in the process of putting together a bible-study on courtship and marriage, and as odd as this sounds, having to make an argument that inter-racial marriage is biblical and reformed and not the result of political correctness in the church.



Andy - 

I've been watching this thread. I see you were given some references. However, I would argue that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that what we see "so clearly" concerning the teaching of Scripture on the subject may in fact be our culture's values having come into the church.

I'd be interested to see how many sources can be found advocating the propriety of mixed marriages that 1) come from respectable theologian/pastors - even if they weren't Reformed - and 2) were written well before the civil rights movement.


----------



## Civbert

SolaScriptura said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of putting together a bible-study on courtship and marriage, and as odd as this sounds, having to make an argument that inter-racial marriage is biblical and reformed and not the result of political correctness in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andy -
> 
> I've been watching this thread. I see you were given some references. However, I would argue that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that what we see "so clearly" concerning the teaching of Scripture on the subject may in fact be our culture's values having come into the church.
Click to expand...


Or it could be the opposite - we are getting over the fog of past culture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Raekwon hit on something here that I haven't had time to weigh in on nor do I have much time to elaborate on but I want to throw out a couple of thoughts. Before I do, I really get tired of people boiling everybody else's objections to being politically correct. There's an underlying assumption that everything that society thinks is wrong is therefore right and to say otherwise is just being politically correct. Make your case but don't boil all theological objections to political correctness. Even if we never convince each other, there is nobody I know on this board who would remotely be able to run for political office given the focus of this board on a very "bigoted" theology of election.

I think it is silly and, frankly, un-Biblical to make the prime concern a matter of skin pigmentation, which is what we immediately think of when we're talking inter-racial marriage.

Some minority group activists will have the same kind of facile "theology" and walk up to white couples with black children and state that they are sorry for such a child because, somehow, his genetic code that controls his pigmentation somehow is also supposed to speak for the type of person he is. One professor even argued, once, that the less melanoma in the skin pigmentation, the more violent a people are.

I had an OPC Pastor - a Korean - who was adopted by parents from Iowa. Not to sound stereotypical but he was more whitebread than I am - his manner of speech, his political convictions, and outlook on life. The culture doesn't come with the pigmentation.

Now, if the question was asked of me: Do you have an issue with inter-_cultural_ marriage then the answer would be: maybe.

At that point, however, the issue would be one of prudence and not a didactic principle that, in all cases, forbids such a thing.

I don't care, however, if it's two white people marrying, the man and woman better take stock of the culture that they are marrying. Just because I'm white and my wife is white and is from the same town doesn't mean there aren't going to be cultural clashes that could have profound theological problems.

After all, the prohibition against marrying Canaanites for the Israelites was hardly on the basis that their genetic code was profoundly different. Rather, it was rooted in the culture and theology of the surrounding nations.

If somebody asked me if I had a problem giving my daughter to a person of another race then I would need to know more about his family, background, etc.

I love the Okinawan people, for instance, and consider those in my Church to be joint heirs. Nevertheless, there are things about Okinawan and Japanese culture that really confuse them religiously: especially with regard to the veneration of their ancestors. Not only that but it creates a tension between two completely different cultures in some cases. If the families meld together just fine then the skin color is not a problem but there are some times some problems that don't arise until years after marriage has taken place and are often assumed away during courting.

I married a half Puerto Rican woman and have never regretted it. Her extended family is and, always has been, remote however since her Mom married a man that travels all over the world for his job. Sonya's parents are both Evangelicals in contrast to her Uncles and Aunts and cousins. If that part of her family was more significant then it would be an issue for our family. Likewise, my family is all Roman Catholic. It could be an issue for her if they were more pugnacious about the fact that I've become "apostate" in their eyes. In fact, just because Sonya married an "ex-Roman Catholic" (me) doesn't mean that I would give immediate consent to my daughter in all cases because that extended family could produce some great tensions.

This is all to say that, whatever study is done here, this issue is always going to boil down to prudence. If there's one thing that bothers me more than anything with discussions like this it's people that draw hard and fast lines theologically on this subject either for or against the issue. They leave the pattern of Biblical wisdom at that point to prooftext an issue that is much more complex on the ground.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Civbert said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of putting together a bible-study on courtship and marriage, and as odd as this sounds, having to make an argument that inter-racial marriage is biblical and reformed and not the result of political correctness in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andy -
> 
> I've been watching this thread. I see you were given some references. However, I would argue that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that what we see "so clearly" concerning the teaching of Scripture on the subject may in fact be our culture's values having come into the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it could be the opposite - we are getting over the fog of past culture.
Click to expand...


That is quite probably true... but I think it is interesting that it took a secular civil rights movement to "clear the fog" of countless years of Christian thinking.

But then again, your comment is PRECISELY - almost word for word - what some of my egalitarian friends say of their movement.

The bottom line is that we interpret Scripture through a cultural lens. We should at least be cognizent of this so that we can be on guard against ourselves.


----------



## Zenas

Wow, Rich would probably weigh in with my pastor and his concerns. He was and I think still is very uncomfortable with his daughter marrying me because she comes from a covenant family and I do not. She was raised Reformed, and I was raised some loose form of Baptist that doesn't go to church, read Scripture, or honor God. This has consistently bothered him about me, not me personally, but for his daughter and having to deal with someone that was raised differently than she was, and for his grandchildren and their covenantal blessings. 

Not to derail the thread, but I thought I'd note that.

You're not helping anything Rich!


----------



## py3ak

Zenas, wouldn't that line of reasoning, or perhaps more properly feeling, have made it rather difficult for Titus to get married? Timothy would presumably have been all right.


----------



## Zenas

Yes, but it's the reasoning nonetheless.

My question was always why I needed to marry another believer who came from an unbelieving family like me. That wouldn't seem to make complete sense because then we'd have no solid example to support us or to look to spiritually. It's like punishment for your parents not being believers. 

Moot now anyway. She has my ring on her finger.


----------



## Civbert

Sola Scriptura said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sola Scriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andy -
> 
> I've been watching this thread. I see you were given some references. However, I would argue that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that what we see "so clearly" concerning the teaching of Scripture on the subject may in fact be our culture's values having come into the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it could be the opposite - we are getting over the fog of past culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is quite probably true... but I think it is interesting that it took a secular civil rights movement to "clear the fog" of countless years of Christian thinking.
> 
> But then again, your comment is PRECISELY - almost word for word - what some of my egalitarian friends say of their movement.
> 
> The bottom line is that we interpret Scripture through a cultural lens. We should at least be cognizant of this so that we can be on guard against ourselves.
Click to expand...


Yes, our culture can prejudice our understand on Scripture. We Christians are notorious for rationalizing our reading of Scripture to get out of it our preconceived notions. But I don't like the "cultural lens" analogy. Lens distort _everything_ we see through them - everything is corrupted and we could not be sure that anything is correct. But the Scriptures should transcend cultures. With God's help, we should be able to count on Scripture to overcome our cultural bias. 

I think it was a cultural bias that led Christians in the past to believe that marrying outside of your race was a kind of sin. But thankfully, our society was moved us away from our old ethnic biases - so on this issue we can now more reasonable understand scripture and see that it has little to no concern about race (a modern concept) and is more concerned with a Biblically healthy marriage. 

There are a few good things that have come out of modern culture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Zenas said:


> Wow, Rich would probably weigh in with my pastor and his concerns. He was and I think still is very uncomfortable with his daughter marrying me because she comes from a covenant family and I do not. She was raised Reformed, and I was raised some loose form of Baptist that doesn't go to church, read Scripture, or honor God. This has consistently bothered him about me, not me personally, but for his daughter and having to deal with someone that was raised differently than she was, and for his grandchildren and their covenantal blessings.
> 
> Not to derail the thread, but I thought I'd note that.
> 
> You're not helping anything Rich!





py3ak said:


> Zenas, wouldn't that line of reasoning, or perhaps more properly feeling, have made it rather difficult for Titus to get married? Timothy would presumably have been all right.





Zenas said:


> Yes, but it's the reasoning nonetheless.
> 
> My question was always why I needed to marry another believer who came from an unbelieving family like me. That wouldn't seem to make complete sense because then we'd have no solid example to support us or to look to spiritually. It's like punishment for your parents not being believers.
> 
> Moot now anyway. She has my ring on her finger.



Sorry to make this difficult.

I wasn't creating a rule by this reasoning but I merely stated it is something to reckon with. I think the man would have to weigh how much a suitor "hates" his family with relation to his love for Christ. Not every man that darkens the door of a Reformed Church has necessarily lost all ties to his family that could pull him back in that direction. He obviously figured you were a good choice so you got over that hurdle. 

Just think though, there are folks, like Doug Wilson, who were once Baptist, seemed Reformed to everyone and now look. All I'm arguing is that culture is a factor.

Let me note another thing. For women, get a sense for how the man's father loves his wife. For the men, take a look at how much the mother of the women your courting seems to trust her father. There are simply a lot of things to weigh when you're talking about a woman you must love as both of you shall live or for the women, especially, to have to sumit to this fellow for the same period. Let not romance be the guide.


----------



## Gloria

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here is my few cents.
> 
> And you all may not like what I am going to say. I hope I am not offending anyone here.
> 
> I have been around the Church since 1981. I have seen fathers put restraints on their kids on many issues. I know some parents who wouldn't desire their kids to marry others because they listen to the devil's music and have an uppity attitude. And for some reason the children still secretly go out on dates with and marry these kinds of persons.
> 
> I personally have friends who are in mixed marriages. Some are strained and some are great. The President of the Bible College I attended for a short time was an Elder in my Church. He is Black as the ace of Spades and his wife is white as you can get. They are beautiful together.
> 
> I married a white woman who was supposedly theologically aligned with me. She apostated and we divorced.
> 
> Even though I do not think one skin color makes one more acceptable before God and that I know we are all image bearers of God I still hope my boys marry within the caucasian part of our Human race. I have enjoyed having my boys all resemble me. When people see my boys they know who they belong to. I enjoy this. And I am not so sure this is sin.
> 
> *I also hate.... and I mean hate the Rap community. It has infested all skin colors, but it is mainly a black thing. I hate the culture it comes from. It is degrading and worse than any of the Rock and Roll I use to listen to. I can't stand pulling into a gas station and hearing the F word and Ho pounded out of the speakers. This started 15 years ago and it is terrible. I agree the Drug infested Rock culture that I grew up in is almost as bad. And I don't want my kids to marry into either culture. *
> 
> After saying the above I will enjoy whatever choices my boys make when they come of age. I will not be overly disappointed if they marry good godly black women. It is really up to God and His sovereign choice. *It would be sin if it was Gods will for them to be in a mixed marriage and they were not. It just is not my first choice for them. It isn't my choice for myself either. Another reason is that white women appeal to me more than black women. *
> 
> Well enough rambling.
> 
> Be Encouraged,



Once again seeing that I'm not, nor will I ever be, in the eyes of some of the brethren, _Just another girl in the PCA._ At least you're honest. Scratch that...at least you put it out there for all to see.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Martin,



PuritanCovenanter said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply undeniable that Christ had blessed cross-cultural marriages in his genealogy, that Moses married outside his "race" and that the thrust of the NT would indicate that *the son of Jewish Christians marrying the son of Gentile Christians would not have been a problem.*
> 
> Andrew,
> Your fingers got mixed up when you were typing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Yikes! You got that right brother. Sons marrying sons is indeed never right. Sorry._
> 
> Regarding your quote about the Rap community though Martin, one thing that has to be recognized is that the precipitous moral decline in most ethnic communities in the USA has been almost entirely the work of _white men_ and to a lesser degree _white women_. If we think about the wreck that was made of the mainline churches, that was white men, if we think of the rise of the existentialist and nihilist philosophies that dominate our culture that was white men, if we think of the socialist political philosophies, the class war, and "entitlements" thinking, that now controls almost all of our political thought, that was white men, welfare, the decline of academics, etc. All of it was driven by white politicians, academics, philosophers, revolutionaries, etc. We have successfully exported our decadence and godlessness to other cultures, and in many of them it has had an even more pernicious effect, but the roots of the culture that has spawned Rap are on our side of the color bar, and frankly Marilyn Manson, Slip-Knot, Joy Division, are in some senses worse than rap. The thug culture, as bad as it is, with its lauding of sex, violence, prostitution and drugs, doesn't yet accept or even glorify homosexuality, atheism, and satanism as much "white" music does.
> 
> But here again, we fundamentally err when we assign the blame for decline on one culture or another, it would rather be like saying Israel became hopelessly decadent because of the strong "Assyrian influence on their religion and mores." The truth is the culprits are always our three great enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil, and the catalyst is always the unbelief and consequent rejection of the word of God regardless of whether we are talking about Ancient Israel or Modern America. I think we'd all do well to pay less attention to materialist ideology and more attention to what our own theology teaches us.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

SolaScriptura said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of putting together a bible-study on courtship and marriage, and as odd as this sounds, having to make an argument that inter-racial marriage is biblical and reformed and not the result of political correctness in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andy -
> 
> I've been watching this thread. I see you were given some references. However, I would argue that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that what we see "so clearly" concerning the teaching of Scripture on the subject may in fact be our culture's values having come into the church.
> 
> I'd be interested to see how many sources can be found advocating the propriety of mixed marriages that 1) come from respectable theologian/pastors - even if they weren't Reformed - and 2) were written well before the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...


On the other hand: 

Many who formed the PCA defended the right of their churches to exclude blacks. Is now wanting to bring them into the churches a capitulation to culture? 

Who is to say that the writers who argued against mixed marriages weren't captive to the mores of their own cultures?


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> I had an OPC Pastor - a Korean - who was adopted by parents from Iowa. Not to sound stereotypical but he was more whitebread than I am - his manner of speech, his political convictions, and outlook on life. The culture doesn't come with the pigmentation.



I know a Korean who was adopted by white parents from Oklahoma. He has an Italian last name and speaks with a southern accent.


----------



## Pilgrim

SolaScriptura said:


> Civbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Andy -
> 
> I've been watching this thread. I see you were given some references. However, I would argue that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that what we see "so clearly" concerning the teaching of Scripture on the subject may in fact be our culture's values having come into the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or it could be the opposite - we are getting over the fog of past culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is quite probably true... but I think it is interesting that it took a secular civil rights movement to "clear the fog" of countless years of Christian thinking.
> 
> But then again, your comment is PRECISELY - almost word for word - what some of my egalitarian friends say of their movement.
> 
> The bottom line is that we interpret Scripture through a cultural lens. We should at least be cognizent of this so that we can be on guard against ourselves.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Homosexual activists say the same with their movement. The issue with all such questions is, what does the Bible say?


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> John Piper has some stuff on it. probably look at his web site.



And I would add it is great. I never knew Moses had a black wife, a Cushite. That really knocks the wind out of so many arguments.


----------



## SEAGOON

Hi Ben,



SolaScriptura said:


> SEAGOON said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the process of putting together a bible-study on courtship and marriage, and as odd as this sounds, having to make an argument that inter-racial marriage is biblical and reformed and not the result of political correctness in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andy -
> 
> I've been watching this thread. I see you were given some references. However, I would argue that it is AT LEAST POSSIBLE that what we see "so clearly" concerning the teaching of Scripture on the subject may in fact be our culture's values having come into the church.
> 
> I'd be interested to see how many sources can be found advocating the propriety of mixed marriages that 1) come from respectable theologian/pastors - even if they weren't Reformed - and 2) were written well before the civil rights movement.
Click to expand...


While plenty of expositors rightly condemn marriages to "foreign wives" it is not because they are foreign per se, but because they are unbelieving and such marriages inevitably draw the covenant community away from their God. 

Now one can find respectable Reformed expositors who condemn mixed-race marriages, and indeed define certain races as inferior and of "low intelligence" but these are almost exclusively American commentators of the 19th and early 20th century and in particular (but by no means exclusively) Southern commentators. To be perfectly frank, the fact is that they do not uniformly condemn all mixed marriages, or view most other races as inferior, this is reserved almost exclusively for Africans. Even today, those whites opposed to "miscegenation" seldom get upset when Hispanics marry Asians or Slavs marry Celts, their ire is almost exclusively reserved for marriages between Caucasians (regardless of their actual ethnic background, Celt, Gaul, Anglo-Saxon, Slav, etc.) and Blacks, Near and Middle Easterners, or Hispanics, which they view as degrading the "white race." The arguments against inter-racial marriage are usually stalking horses used to cover that which offends them, namely people who appear to be of their race marrying people outside of it - i.e. whites marrying non-whites.

Now I want to be fair, I've seen exactly the same thing in the Korean community, in using biblical pretexts as an excuse for why their children should not marry non-Koreans, and I've also seen hostility in the black community towards marriages to whites (and whites adopting black children). And just as the Greeks considered non-Greeks to be "Barbarians", Asians have historically viewed non-Asians as inferior or simply uncivilized. But generally speaking the real issue is simple racism, and just as we are very good at coming up with supposedly biblical reasons to justify divorce, we are also good at finding reasons to justify things like slavery or feelings of racial superiority. This is common to fallen man. I myself will admit that while I wouldn't have a problem with my daughters marrying godly Asian or Black men, I'd have more difficulty getting over them marrying believing French or Irish men because of an ingrained racial hostility towards those races. If any of us think we've escaped the ravages of the fall in regard to our neighbors, we'd better think again.

So, while Spurgeon could support abolition and write praises for mixed-race marriage in the bible, and the unity of all races in Christ:



> We note that two women are mentioned in this fifth verse: a Canaanite and a Moabitess. Thus Gentile blood mingled with the Hebrew strain. Our King has come to break down the partition wall. As Gentiles we rejoice in this. Jesus is heir of a line in which flows the blood of the harlot Rahab, and of the rustic Ruth; he is akin to the fallen and to the lowly, and he will show his love even to the poorest and most obscure. I, too, may have part and lot in him. - Spurgeon



I'm not certain that he would have been happy if one of his own sons had married a godly black woman, even though his own words could frequently be used in support of the decision. 

The problem is often that we make theology the bond-servant of our innate inclinations, or that we fail to let the theology we confess guide our thoughts, feelings, and actions. So even more often than we have people creating a theology that excuses their detestation of other races, we have people simply acting out of accord with the theology they profess to believe. _Sure I believe we are all one in Jesus Christ and confess that the believing African is my brother, I'm just not going to have him over is all. I'm not even going to realize I'm doing it._


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Pilgrim said:


> The issue with all such questions is, what does the Bible say?



 and


----------



## timmopussycat

SEAGOON said:


> Just a few thoughts, let me start with a few practical applications of the "you should should your pride in your ethnicity and only marry within your kin" mindset. And then move to a theological consideration.
> 
> First, instructing your children to marry within ethnic lines inevitable communicates strong disapproval for failing to do so, and a sense that the people outside of our ethnicity _no matter how good a Christian they might be_ are in some sense not quite as good. Non-discriminatory ethnic pride, while a nice idea just doesn't occur in a fallen world. Indeed to favor one thing or person over another is to discriminate between them.



I agree. And I also agree with your theological reasons for condemning "the practice of marrying within your kin." Yet may I interject a cautionary note, as one who, for the last 7.5 happy years has been married to the lovely and loving Orchid Lady, a Singaporean whose ancestry is purely ethnic Chinese? 

Interratial marriage brings some real problems with it. And while those problems are not enough to block a marriage between Christians they can make achieving a successful marriage more difficult. In our case those problems were primarily cultural and linguistic. In the first case, we received a preparatory blessing from God in that my mother's family were Canadian anglophiles so I was somewhat prepared to understand the influence English culture (something quite different from Canadian culture) had on Singapore in general and on OL and her family in particular. One linguistic problem I still have is that OL sometimes tends to think in her Chinese dialect which lacks the concepts "thank you" and most especially "please", together with using an "imperative" sounding voice tone where Canadians use a "request" tone. If OL asks me to do things when thinking in Chinese, sooner or later I have to remind myself that OL is not treating her husband as if he were her slave, which is what she would sound like should you overhear her. No, she is just thinking in Chinese again.

I mention these examples to make this point: if two people are considering interrational marriage, they should try, or be advised to try, to discern the basics of the cultural and linguistic differences between them; then form an outline of how to deal with them. In our case we worked out the basics of happy compromises before marriage, and those work to this day. What if a couple can't come to basic compromises over these issues during courting? Maybe they should not get married. Not every difference between people needs to be harmonized and not every two people will make a good couple. But if they decide not to get married for such reasons I don't think they are being racist for doing so.


----------



## RamistThomist

puritanpilgrim said:


> John Piper has some stuff on it. probably look at his web site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I would add it is great. I never knew Moses had a black wife, a Cushite. That really knocks the wind out of so many arguments.
Click to expand...


It is okay. Some of his arguments are good. Some are, quite frankly, naive. I know I will step on toes but his appeal to Martin Luther King, Jr. isn't the smartest move. King was a socialist, and I hate to say it, a womanizer and given his doctoral studies, it is questionable if he affirmed the deity of Christ. 

I have no problem with mixed-race marriages, and I do appreciate that some real moves forward have been made by the black community, and I realize that King did accomplish some good due to the sinfulness of some whites, but that being said, I cannot give my endorsement to him.


----------

