Mixed Race Marriage Resources?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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. :gpl:
 
Or, and here's a wild and crazy idea, let's use the fictional island of "Crete" as the example instead of Nashville... :duh:
 
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).
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
There is always more criteria than "they are both believers"...preferably they complement eachother ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.



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."
 
... 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.
 
Last edited:
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).


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.
 
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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






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
 
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.
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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?

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.)
 
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,
 
Last edited:
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.
:cheers2:
 
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.
 
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.

Or it could be the opposite - we are getting over the fog of past culture.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top