The United States and Interracial Marriage

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

From my perspective, I think it tends to be a subset of folks of a certain age that have a big hang up about interracial relationships. Those prejudices should be condemned. Thankfully, they appear to be shrinking with successive generations. When I was a child you would still see a few "Invisible Empire" bumper signs on trucks in rural Mississippi. Forty years later, those people would be considered misanthropes by the vast majority of people here.

 

[JML]

Instead of worrying about the stereotypes of others, you probably should start with an examination of your own.

Being from Alabama, I understand the whole Southern pride thing and I understand that the Civil War (or the War of Northern Agression if you so choose) wasn't fought about slavery alone. I get it. However, I never really understood the other view on the flag until hearing the perspective of someone that understood the other view. My best friend is African American. I don't think that Shawn is stereotyping anybody with what he said. I understand that the flag doesn't make one a racist. Truth is though that the confederate flag cannot ever be separated from the horrible acts of slavery. Whether anyone likes it or not, the flag is associated with racism. Therefore, people have a choice to make. 1) Keep the flag and try to explain all the time how you are not racist or 2) Remove what is a sign of the horrors and injustices of slavery and have nothing to do with it. I personally can be happy about being from the South without it.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

Whether anyone likes it or not, the flag is associated with racism. Therefore, people have a choice to make. 1) Keep the flag and try to explain all the time how you are not racist or 2) Remove what is a sign of the horrors and injustices of slavery and have nothing to do with it. I personally can be happy about being from the South without it.

I have lived in Pittsburgh practically my whole life, so when I see a confederate flag that is the first thing that pops into my mind. Like John mentioned, the war was fought over much more than just slavery, but to fly a confederate flag in the air makes somebody not familiar with the history think exactly that. Even if I was familiar with all the reasons, and approved them outside of the immoral reasons, I would still not fly a confederate flag in Pittsburgh. The reason is simple, in the north flying a Confederate flag is considered taboo.

 

[Andres]

Whether anyone likes it or not, the flag is associated with racism.

Yup.

 

[Edward]

The reason is simple, in the north flying a Confederate flag is considered taboo.

Ah, but you miss the simple pleasures in life that come from sticking your thumb in the collective eye of the politically correct crowd.

As for me, I'll take a General Jackson over a General Hooker any day of the week.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

It is the case that American slavery was the catalyst for the U.S. Civil War. Slavery was the engine that drove states' rights, popular sovereignty, and so forth. And American slavery was inextricably tied up with racism in a way that slavery in antiquity was not. Many critics of slavery, like Clay and Lincoln, supported colonization because they did not think that the slaves could ever live as free on equal terms with whites.

The Jim Crow laws that came in the wake of Reconstruction showed the prescience of Lincoln's apprehensions: slavery ended, but the racism that attended (and even engendered and fostered) slavery raged on. Racism has been ameliorated in remarkable ways in this country and great progress has been made. Few who have not delved into the literature can appreciate how racist the nineteenth century was, even in the best of men. We have come along more than many realize.

The Presbyterian Church had some of the most articulate criticisms of slavery and some of the most trenchant defenses of slavery. It is a legacy that we should not ignore, both so that we might be thankful for how far we've come and vigilant with respect to continuing progress.

Peace,
Alan

 

[JS116]

Thank you so much Alan,that's all I was trying to say.I apologize in advance if I seemed to prove otherwise.I used the topic of interracial marriage as a catalyst to engage into the topic, but I guess some people are uncomfortable speaking on it, not sure if that's a good thing although. I believe we especially in the reformed churches can start the process of restoration by being gracious,loving and humble when speaking on it, some churches already have.

For those who wish to avoid the conversation,as a minority expect not a lot of growth of the gospel and church membership in urban areas,if we can't come together to speak and resolve the issues inside the church how can you expect those outside of the church to come in and embrace what we proclaim?This issue is much bigger than the "white church","black church" ,the north and south, united states and foreign countries etc. this is about Christ's church, the local and visible body, as well as the invisible spiritual body.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

You have nothing for which to apologize from my perspective, Shawn. I simply, as a historian, wanted to give a bit of perspective and affirm how much of a role racism has played in our history, acknowledge how far we've come, and encourage continued vigilance against racism.

As a Presbyterian I am grieved at the support some of our forefathers gave to slavery and racism. I realize that it was pervasive in the nineteenth century but that still is grievous: it cost us then and still costs us today. As not a few have put it--slavery is America's orignal sin. It is not the only blot on us as a nation, but it is the chief one and it perplexes and further grieves me when I hear, of all people, Christians make light of this history or dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Peace,
Alan

 

[mvdm]

Thank you so much Alan,that's all I was trying to say.I apologize in advance if I seemed to prove otherwise.I used the topic of interracial marriage as a catalyst to engage into the topic, but I guess some people are uncomfortable speaking on it, not sure if that's a good thing although. I believe we especially in the reformed churches can start the process of restoration by being gracious,loving and humble when speaking on it, some churches already have.

For those who wish to avoid the conversation,as a minority expect not a lot of growth of the gospel and church membership in urban areas,if we can't come together to speak and resolve the issues inside the church how can you expect those outside of the church to come in and embrace what we proclaim?This issue is much bigger than the "white church","black church" ,the north and south, united states and foreign countries etc. this is about Christ's church, the local and visible body, as well as the invisible spiritual body.

Voddie Baucham once related his conversation with a white pastor of a southern church who asked Voddie for advice on how his white church could become more integrated. Voddie then asked the pastor to drive him through the neighborhoods around the town and the church. They observed together that the town was nearly 100% white people. Voddie then turned to the pastor and asked him "now how do you think you are going to integrate your church when there are no black people here?--brother, your task is to minister to the sheep that God has placed under your care!"

That story had me wondering whether sometimes in our rightful desire to combat the heart issue of hatred toward other races, that we strive for remedies that focus on outward and superficial matters, i.e., trying to artificially "create" integration . In my hometown made up of mostly Dutch ancestry, we have a number of migrant Hispanic workers. There were efforts to "integrate" them into the existing churches, but that bore little fruit. So a group of area churches called an Hispanic minister to plant an Hispanic, spanish speaking church in town. My question: should these area churches rather have continued efforts to "integrate" these workers into their existing "white" churches, or is it understandable/acceptable to have an Hispanic constituted church in town? . I have no definitive opinion on the matter, but am curious as to anyone's thoughts.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Mark:

You raise excellent questions. That they are now being raised and addressed by Reformed and Presbtyerian Churches is important. We've come a long way!

With respect to the last two questions--strive to integrate the Hispanic brethren or start a Reformed Hispanic congregation?--I think that the language issue settles it in favor of the latter. Different congregations need not mean spiritual disunity. The challenge is to recognize the historic racism as well as its present reality and to be thoughtful and intentional in seeking to address it. You all are addressing it and seeking to minister. The solutions will not look the same everywhere, but we must not stick our heads in the sand and deny it. We must minister, as VB rightly commented, where we are to whom God has given us. We must also look to break down barriers, since it is in Christ that walls of division come down, and we are one in Him.

Perhaps I should also say that our Covenanter brethren have a distinguished history in opposing slavery, one from which the broader-streamed Presbyterians would have done well to learn.

Peace,
Alan

 

[jwright82]

I am just highly appalled by some of the things we allow to go on.

What things? And who is "we"?

Haha im sorry Daniel I keep responding and missing your replies,my apologies.

But I am referring to Christianity as a whole,I'm just shocked about what things we allow in our churches.This problem of interracial marriage has been brought to me by some friends and myself about being frowned upon by church members and family members for the idea.I dont want us to get too hung up on interracial marriage in this discussion,I just used interracial marriage to show one of the effects that happen when allowing racism to go on not dealt with.

I live in a southern town where Racism isn't as bad as it was but not dead either. My church would never allow racism in its members but what do we have to do with the hypothetical church down the street who preachs against inter-racial marriage? My point is that my church can only do what my church does, we have no say over other churchs. If we just preach the gospel than the rest will work itself out.

 

[J. Dean]

I live in a southern town where Racism isn't as bad as it was but not dead either. My church would never allow racism in its members but what do we have to do with the hypothetical church down the street who preachs against inter-racial marriage? My point is that my church can only do what my church does, we have no say over other churchs. If we just preach the gospel than the rest will work itself out.

Correct. Racism cannot be externally changed by man; it can only be internally rooted out by God.

Not to stray from the intended topic, but sometimes we forget that we are called to be Christians, not activists. We are salt and light, but we work in the area God gives us, and God does the changing.

 

[JS116]

I am just highly appalled by some of the things we allow to go on.

What things? And who is "we"?

Haha im sorry Daniel I keep responding and missing your replies,my apologies.

But I am referring to Christianity as a whole,I'm just shocked about what things we allow in our churches.This problem of interracial marriage has been brought to me by some friends and myself about being frowned upon by church members and family members for the idea.I dont want us to get too hung up on interracial marriage in this discussion,I just used interracial marriage to show one of the effects that happen when allowing racism to go on not dealt with.

I live in a southern town where Racism isn't as bad as it was but not dead either. My church would never allow racism in its members but what do we have to do with the hypothetical church down the street who preachs against inter-racial marriage? My point is that my church can only do what my church does, we have no say over other churchs. If we just preach the gospel than the rest will work itself out.

I can see what your saying, but why does a church necessarily have to allow something in that particular church to speak against it?Is it not a christians duty to speak on social injustices that are going on in the culture that are inconsistent with the message of the gospel?Who said we have to be activist to do the work God has called us to do?The apostle Paul consistently instructs the the man of God to pursue righteousness and see to it that others get treated with equality and fairness.Jesus left us here for a reason, to preach and live out the gospel, reflecting the image of Christ.Jesus wasn't standing in the synagogue saying "I just came so you guys can get into heaven, I hope everything works out and eventually someday people will start getting treated fairly."Instead you saw him speaking against the foulness going on and proclaiming the message of mercy and redemption through him.Are we better than our savior?Arent we supposed to thirst for righteousness and mercy of others since Christ lived and died for ours?Yes without the spirit's working it is not possible,but let us remember the spirit works in us and through us.

 

[Andres]

Is it not a christians duty to speak on social injustices that are going on in the culture that are inconsistent with the message of the gospel?

Yes, it is the Christian's duty, but not the Church's duty. I see a difference.

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

Voddie Baucham once related his conversation with a white pastor of a southern church who asked Voddie for advice on how his white church could become more integrated. Voddie then asked the pastor to drive him through the neighborhoods around the town and the church. They observed together that the town was nearly 100% white people. Voddie then turned to the pastor and asked him "now how do you think you are going to integrate your church when there are no black people here?--brother, your task is to minister to the sheep that God has placed under your care!"

 

[Rufus]

I am just highly appalled by some of the things we allow to go on.

What things? And who is "we"?

Haha im sorry Daniel I keep responding and missing your replies,my apologies.

But I am referring to Christianity as a whole,I'm just shocked about what things we allow in our churches.This problem of interracial marriage has been brought to me by some friends and myself about being frowned upon by church members and family members for the idea.I dont want us to get too hung up on interracial marriage in this discussion,I just used interracial marriage to show one of the effects that happen when allowing racism to go on not dealt with.

I live in a southern town where Racism isn't as bad as it was but not dead either. My church would never allow racism in its members but what do we have to do with the hypothetical church down the street who preachs against inter-racial marriage? My point is that my church can only do what my church does, we have no say over other churchs. If we just preach the gospel than the rest will work itself out.

I would argue there may be more racism in areas outside of the south than in the south simply because the lack of ethnic minorities in places like were I live. Simply if you don't live with or know somebody outside of your ethnicity than your going to have an easier time starting to hate the collective group.

I don't consider the Confederate flag as taboo, but I don't like it when people who have NO connection to the South use it because they call themselves "hicks" (as if the south was made up of "hicks"). If anybody has the right to use the Confederate flag here it is those who were raised in the south, or have some type of connection. I'm a direct descendant of a Confederate soldier, as well as a direct descendent of an American revolutionary war soldier.

 

[chuckd]

Let me first say that I would never discourage a person from entering into a relationship with another race. There have been beautiful relationships and strong marriages and most of the posts on here are great to combat racism.

There are still legitimate arguments to warn a person from entering into a relationship with another race. Some races have vast cultural differences and to say "all humanity is the same, what's the difference" turns a blind eye to the huge potential problems that could occur. We need to be careful and not swing the pendulum too far to the other side and actively encourage interracial relationships just so we don't seem racist.

From a popular cultural book on Chinese:
Some Americans fall in love with a Chinese man or woman, get married, and (sometimes) live happily ever after. Yet, cautionary words are in order. The reason is not that the process of establishing a romantic attachment with a Chinese is difficult. On the contrary, it is too easy.

Courtship practices among people in Western countries are based on the assumption that it is right and good for a young person to be involved in a series of romantic attachments over several years before finally settling into marriage. This assumption is the basis for dating, going steady, and even living together. The rationale for serial romances is that the young person will be far better able to make the choice of a long-term partner if he or she has had previous experiences with a range of temporary partners. Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, Western romances have often included sexual relations.

This typically Western set of assumptions does not operate in the culture of the Chinese. Furthermore, these assumptions have a high potential for getting foreigners into great difficulty. The Chinese most emphatically do not share the idea that wide experience of any sort with members of the opposite sex is a desirable precursor to long-term commitment. Any young person who is seen as sharing his or her affections with a series of others is viewed thereafter as an undesirable romantic partner, someone that serious, responsible members of the opposite sex had better avoid. Although this attitude is beginning to change, it remains strongly ingrained in many Chinese.

Just as same-sex friendships are virtually always maintained for life among the Chinese, so are heterosexual attachments. Once a romantic relationship is acknowledged, it is expected by the partners (and their acquaintances) to be permanent. Romantic physical contact of any sort is an acknowledgment of strong attachment. This includes not only sexual intercourse, but also kissing, petting, and hugging. Even mere hand-holding conveys serious romantic intent among traditional-thinking Chinese.

The danger in Chinese-Western romances is that the person from the West, acting on typical Western assumptions, will demonstrate affection for his or her Chinese friend by a physical act of endearment. This may be one that, to the Westerner, seems quite innocent of deep meaning, such as kissing. It may be accompanied by a verbal expression of affection that also carries no deep meaning in the West. But acts such as these usually send a clear message to the Chinese, which may be paraphrased as “This is the love of my life!” Instant bonding may result.

Most foreigners are terrified when they discover that the person with whom they thought they were having a casual, if affectionate, date is now eager to discuss the course of their lives together. They are mortified when they find that their efforts to extricate themselves, albeit gently, result in major psychological trauma and perhaps even the involvement of Chinese relatives incensed at the idea that the respectability of a family member is about to be forever tarnished.

Of course, the foreigner may seriously intend a permanent attachment leading to marriage. If so, the Chinese partner’s family members may be pleased about this—but not necessarily. Traditionally, the Chinese have had a deep fear of miscegenation. And the distrust of foreigners engendered by historical episodes of foreign occupation as well as by indoctrination during the Cultural Revolution still lingers in the minds of some. So the prospect of marriage to a non-Chinese person may bring threats of disownment from parents. The Chinese partner in such a marriage may be stigmatized by friends. So the foreigner who contemplates marriage to a Chinese would be wise to determine the extent, if any, to which objections may arise before taking any unalterable steps.

Finally, we offer two other important notes of caution. Since China began opening to the outside world, prostitution has emerged in the coastal cities. Tourists and businessmen staying at hotels sometimes receive calls from young women offering sexual services. We strongly advise against using these services. Prostitution and the use of prostitutes are criminal offenses in the PRC. There are cases of foreign businessmen who, because they became involved with prostitutes, landed in jail, were victims of blackmail, or had confidential documents stolen from their hotel rooms.

Homosexuality is viewed by most Chinese as a low and contemptible practice. A charge of homosexuality can ruin the life of a Chinese, even to the point of his or her being banished forever from contact with family and friends. Do not expect any Chinese to accept this overwhelming risk.

 

[Kim G]

Let me first say that I would never discourage a person from entering into a relationship with another race. There have been beautiful relationships and strong marriages and most of the posts on here are great to combat racism.

There are still legitimate arguments to warn a person from entering into a relationship with another race. Some races have vast cultural differences and to say "all humanity is the same, what's the difference" turns a blind eye to the huge potential problems that could occur. We need to be careful and not swing the pendulum too far to the other side and actively encourage interracial relationships just so we don't seem racist.

I get what you're saying, but it's not the same thing. You're talking about people with different worldviews based on their location and culture, not people in the same location and culture with the same worldview who happen to have a different color of skin. For example, a black American will have more "worldview" in common with a white American than with a black African. A woman may look Korean but may have been born and bred in America. She shouldn't be encouraged to marry a Korean from Korea just because they look similar. I've noticed, even in marriages between those who have the same skin color, there can be a lot of tension if one comes from a poor family and one from a wealthy family, or one from a religious family and one from an athiest family, or one from a happy family and one from a broken and abusive family. NONE of these things has anything to do with the racial conflict.

 

[Andres]

Let me first say that I would never discourage a person from entering into a relationship with another race. There have been beautiful relationships and strong marriages and most of the posts on here are great to combat racism.

There are still legitimate arguments to warn a person from entering into a relationship with another race. Some races have vast cultural differences and to say "all humanity is the same, what's the difference" turns a blind eye to the huge potential problems that could occur. We need to be careful and not swing the pendulum too far to the other side and actively encourage interracial relationships just so we don't seem racist.

I get what you're saying, but it's not the same thing. You're talking about people with different worldviews based on their location and culture, not people in the same location and culture with the same worldview who happen to have a different color of skin. For example, a black American will have more "worldview" in common with a white American than with a black African. A woman may look Korean but may have been born and bred in America. She shouldn't be encouraged to marry a Korean from Korea just because they look similar. I've noticed, even in marriages between those who have the same skin color, there can be a lot of tension if one comes from a poor family and one from a wealthy family, or one from a religious family and one from an athiest family, or one from a happy family and one from a broken and abusive family. NONE of these things has anything to do with the racial conflict.

 

[Rich Koster]

I'm a German- Slovak American mut married to a English, Scottish & Cherokee mut...in Christ. If she should die before me, I have two races to chose from for a new wife. The living ( Christian) and the dead ( Non-Christian). Any cultural nuance would only determine what type of yummy foods may appear at the table, that we give thanks for. Likewise, If I should die first, she would be free to marry any man ......in Christ. It's a blemish we have to deal with, that some folks just don't understand proper racism. I also understand that neither of us should chose from option two ( the Un- Christian) when one of us goes into glory before the other .

 

[chuckd]

I get what you're saying, but it's not the same thing. You're talking about people with different worldviews based on their location and culture, not people in the same location and culture with the same worldview who happen to have a different color of skin. For example, a black American will have more "worldview" in common with a white American than with a black African. A woman may look Korean but may have been born and bred in America. She shouldn't be encouraged to marry a Korean from Korea just because they look similar. I've noticed, even in marriages between those who have the same skin color, there can be a lot of tension if one comes from a poor family and one from a wealthy family, or one from a religious family and one from an athiest family, or one from a happy family and one from a broken and abusive family. NONE of these things has anything to do with the racial conflict.

Well said. Would you council these people of the potential tensions that could arise between poor/wealthy, religious/atheist, happy/broken? If so, I think we must do the same between races, even if they are from the same country like the U.S. It's not like immigrants immediately adopt the host country's culture, even several generations down. My point was that vast differences in race (and wealth, family, culture, etc.) must be addressed and not swept under the rug as "you're the same, get over it."

 

[Raine]

I think JS116 has raised some really good questions. I understand that the purpose of the church is not social activism, but it does seem like Christians as a group are often quick to jump into social activism on things like gay marriage or abortion, but have too often remained silent on racism. Even worse, many churches have taken the wrong side and supported racism in various forms. It's wrong to ignore ignore it and I do think that we should address it more openly, because there are still people who claim to be both racist and Christian and doing so brings reproach on the name of Christ and the church and goes against the teaching of the Bible that we are all of one blood through Christ.

I was raised racist, and my family tried to use religion as a justification for racism. I knew many people who even used a twisted form of Christianity to spread racism and to teach the falsehood that the Bible condoned racism, and my husband and I were members of a church that taught that interracial dating was a sin (this was less than 10 years ago). Almost every KKK member I've known (over 100, including several leaders) has claimed to be a Christian - a few were ordained ministers, and some would claim that they were doing God's work. To me, turning a blind eye to this and overlooking racism, especially from those who profess Christ, is far more serious than most of us take it.

Yes, it takes God to change hearts and this will come about through the gospel but that does not mean that we do not have a responsibility, as individuals, to speak out against racism and to counter the lie that it is somehow acceptable within the church or in society as a whole. I think some people are afraid to speak up because older people they respect may hold racist views, or because they think the problem will just go away, but it won't. There are still young people being raised to think that hatred is acceptable and that race is some sort of determinant of worth or character, and it is just as wrong to ignore those ideas and let them stand as it is to ignore any other false and destructive idea.

If people think that it is acceptable to protest or speak out against abortion and gay marriage, but is overly activist or going to far to speak out against racism, then they need to examine their reasoning. All of the above are sinful, but racism can be even more destructive and insidious because so many people have wrongly tried to justify it by hiding under a cloak of Christianity. If we have an obligation to oppose moral wrongs, then it seems like we should start with the one that has been given the most quarter among us.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Raine:

I thank God for your strong and clear witness to us. I am glad that you chose to speak up as you did and to share this with us.

I believe that you are right and if the Lord, to whom we cry day and night for revival and renewal in His church, chooses to bless us with such, our confession of sin will include what you bring before us. The American church has much to confess in this regard. May the Lord be pleased to break us all so that we mourn for our sin and know the balm that comes to the broken-hearted.

We heard a marvelous sermon at our General Assembly about how we need to be the "Church of the Broken Hearted." What you spoke to, Raine, is no small part of that. May God truly have mercy upon us and grant us such broken hearts.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Kim G]

Well said. Would you council these people of the potential tensions that could arise between poor/wealthy, religious/atheist, happy/broken?

Yes, I would council these people because their family differences could cause problems.

If so, I think we must do the same between races, even if they are from the same country like the U.S. It's not like immigrants immediately adopt the host country's culture, even several generations down.

You're not getting it. Once again, you're mixing race with culture. If a third-generation American who looks Japanese marries a third-generation American who looks Russian, there is nothing to council just on the basis of their appearance. They are different "races" but from the same culture. However, if a third-generation American who looks Japanese wants to marry a first-generation American from Japan, then they need to be cautioned because their worldviews are so different by virtue of their different cultural upbringings.

My point was that vast differences in race (and wealth, family, culture, etc.) must be addressed and not swept under the rug as "you're the same, get over it."

And my point is that you need to leave race out of it completely. RACE has nothing to do with it. CULTURE is the issue. Worldview is the issue. Not race. Not the color of someone's skin or their hair or where their ancestors came from many years ago.

 

[J. Dean]

One other thing, just to set the record straight: the United States is not the only country in which racism was (or still can be) a problem.

 

[JS116]

I don't know what else to say...I simply cannot convince anyone that racism still exists and is alive and in the church. I think it's a real problem when the world can see that racism still exists and can address it faster then the church can. To be quite honest, I could careless if i'm liked because I choose to speak on the subject of race,the call of the gospel isn't a likeable message. I will not sit back and watch anyone get treated unjustly in Christ's name and neither would the disciples. If you can, I would highly exhort you to examine your heart in the light of scripture. What i'm not looking for is a one size fits all fix, some churches have it more deeply rooted than others,while some would even see it to be non-existing or not even to be tolerated in their church and I commend them for their efforts to see unity and equality within the body. No matter what your standing is, I urge you and even myself to always be on guard against it as well as other sins, because it can easily creep in unnoticed and destroy.

Grace and Peace,

Shawn

 

[Rufus]

If she should die before me, I have two races to chose from for a new wife. The living ( Christian) and the dead ( Non-Christian).

Marrying zombies is strictly forbidden.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There are multitude ways that people create "in-out" groups.

It so happens that in this country a super-strong divide was fostered from the very beginning. It began (I daresay) with the Euro-colonials vs. the established inhabitants. Both groups viewed the other as aliens. Conflicts ensued.

The importation of African-slaves (beginning with the Colonials, up and down the seaboard) was extremely damaging. People ripped from their home culture to live for and serve an alien population, that did not deign to assimilate them. Indentured servants could earn their way to freedom; slaves were chattel; but worse, there was an "infinite gulf fixed" between the African slave and his ancestral home and culture.

Today, most of us simply can't fathom what this was like. In that world, all that was left to such people was to bond with fellow slaves. We can thank God that many such people were brought to faith in Christ, but too often it was in spite of the indifference of their masters and caretakers. Perhaps it was the daunting size of the problem the Euros had created for themselves, but in any case their inertia in addressing it only makes the small inroads that were made stand out conspicuously for good. Which means that much evil was left.

When manumission was given (and there was a sizable population of African freedmen in Colonial America), still there was a cultural divide that continued unaddressed by the dominant group. Churches were begun for or by blacks, e.g. the AME in the aftermath of the War of Independence. Meanwhile, the very obvious divide based largely on skin-color/appearance and undergird by institutional, intergenerational slavery continued.

The eventual Civil War did not erase the divide. Indeed, the white northerner-abolitionists who ostensibly fought against the white southern-slavers turned out to be (if possible!) even more committed to the group-divide than the defeated southerners.



Unfortunately, even this brief rehearsal can do nothing more than broad-brush the whole spectrum, and fails to do justice to either the highs or the lows of the reality. So here's the bottom lines, as I see them:

1) We must all acknowledge the group-divisions of the past (and present), recognizing that while some distinctions are fine and even inevitable, sin pushes us into evil exhibitions of the in-out model.

2) Sinful bigotry exists in every group.

3) Bigotry is only one of many sins that define humanity.

4) Spend most of your energy addressing your own sins as you become aware of them, and your next greatest efforts on the sins that are observable close-to-home, where you can make a personal impact. Elite-driven, mass "crusades" are inevitably the worst sort of flops. People resent being told (out of the blue, by a self- or elite-appointed prophet) what or how to think and backed up by punitive powers, especially on the basis of some alien source of authority.

5) If someone feels today like they are still "oppressed" or "victims," despite "progress" and "water-under-the-bridge," you and I just need to back off, and give them their space and the freedom to work through those issues. Who am I to tell that person how to feel about his personal background, or just his ancestry? Encourage that person, give him "data" if he will receive such from you; but don't assume that history is on your side, or that you have all the facts.

6) Start identifying MOST with the only "in-group" that matters: Christians. Be breaking or loosening your old, inviolable "ties that bind." Be thinking and feeling the pain of the persecuted, in those countries with odd-names, strange-languages, and a-typical colored/facial-featured people--people who would otherwise be "aliens" to you, but for the common grace-of-God-in-Christ you share. You have more in common with them than the fellow-American, unbelieving neighbor you've known since childhood.

Personally, I've found it very liberating to be divorced from my old nationalism, regionalism, elitism-of-all-kinds. When you start to feel "oppressed" by the world, or to feel "alienation" from the mass of people (society/culture) around you, you see and feel things you never saw before. I won't pretend to be able to feel what it is like to be "Black in the USA," I'm not entitled to join that group, given who I am and all my background. But I am able to experience what it is like to "feel oppressed" by the same or similar groups that many African-Americans (who choose to self-identify together) are alienated from. If I can't overcome individual or group rejection of me (based on perceived group-affiliation), I can still sympathize with the underlying causes of that hostility.

It might be nice to come together with groups other than the ones I fit in, either to make a justifiable common cause; or just to be able to speak to each other to learn what unites us, even while accepting our differences. But it isn't always possible to overcome the barriers that exist--natural, or erected by men of either side--prison walls or defensive walls. The Christian route to penetration is weakness and perceived vulnerability. Once inside, then we can try to "be all things to all men," and make connections based on our shared humanity, our shared sinfulness and fallenness, and the shared Savior of a New Humanity.

When the people you are trying to reach can see that you knowingly share something with them at the deepest level, and you actually identify with them and love them, their hearts open to you. But the more indissolubly you are connected with your culturally "parent" associations--biases hidden even to yourself--your efforts will be necessarily (inadvertently?) tainted with those contaminating influences. How can the "target" culture fail to feel the mercenary-quality of your salesmanship? "What's in it for you, or your's, pal?"



May God aid us in overcoming both our "majority" and our "minority" cultural biases and elitism, subordinating all of those things (even the good in them) to our devotion to the One Mediator: Prophet, Priest, and King of an alternative people, of another world.

"Let goods and kindred go--
This mortal life also.
..........
His Kingdom is forever."

 

[J. Dean]

I don't know what else to say...I simply cannot convince anyone that racism still exists and is alive and in the church. I think it's a real problem when the world can see that racism still exists and can address it faster then the church can. To be quite honest, I could careless if i'm liked because I choose to speak on the subject of race,the call of the gospel isn't a likeable message. I will not sit back and watch anyone get treated unjustly in Christ's name and neither would the disciples. If you can, I would highly exhort you to examine your heart in the light of scripture. What i'm not looking for is a one size fits all fix, some churches have it more deeply rooted than others,while some would even see it to be non-existing or not even to be tolerated in their church and I commend them for their efforts to see unity and equality within the body. No matter what your standing is, I urge you and even myself to always be on guard against it as well as other sins, because it can easily creep in unnoticed and destroy.

Grace and Peace,

Shawn

+10

 

[chuckd]

And my point is that you need to leave race out of it completely. RACE has nothing to do with it. CULTURE is the issue. Worldview is the issue. Not race. Not the color of someone's skin or their hair or where their ancestors came from many years ago.

Ah. We simply have different definitions of "race." I don't see race as simply the color of your skin, it also includes ancestry and ethnicity (which includes a common culture). And I think even a third generation immigrant will have their (all included) race, not just the color of their skin. If they don't, their parents will. We see that black, white, Chinese, Mexican, etc. ethnicities in America are unique even though many of these races immigrated several hundred years ago. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing though. The world is full of "same, but different" dichotomies. I just think the "different" should be addressed when entering marriage.

 

[Kim G]

Ah. We simply have different definitions of "race."

And this shows why it's beneficial for everyone in a discussion to make sure terms are being used the same way. Thanks for the clarification!