Mixed Race Marriage Resources?

[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]

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]

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

SERIOUSLY.

(heh heh)

 

[RamistThomist]

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

SERIOUSLY.

(heh heh)

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

SERIOUSLY.

(heh heh)

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]

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

SERIOUSLY.

(heh heh)

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

Yep (all the same kid, though).

 

[RamistThomist]

SERIOUSLY.

(heh heh)

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

Yep (all the same kid, though).

How old is she?

 

[Theoretical]

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

SERIOUSLY.

(heh heh)

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]

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

Yep (all the same kid, though).

How old is she?

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

 

[SEAGOON]

Hi Ken,

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.