Hi Mark, Some months back I responded to one of your posts saying, in part, that I wanted to provide Christian Biblical refutation to some of your assertions about race and life on earth. I intended to post this under our above referenced exchange, but think it is appropriate because it is timely and related, to post it here.

Like you, I'd like nothing better politically than to see Buchanan/Foster ticket win the U.S. elections in November. Like you, I am totally opposed to globalism, thinking that every nation ought to act in its own perceived best interests. Like you, I think that most people naturally gravitate towards those who look, sound, and act like themselves. This can be seen even in infants who are visibly interested in other infants.

Unlike you, and unlike many Americans of attenuated African descent, I don't think of my racial group as "My People." For me, everyone who has had saving contact with the Living God (Jesus Christ, YHWH) through time and space is "My People."

Here's something I found on my computer's hard drive. I don't seriously expect it to change your views, but, as an opposing viewpoint, it may give you something about which to think and against which to react.

By the way, I think the term African-American is a silly-assed and artificial social construct. It's about as stupid as saying "European-American." That term is in the paper that follows, and yes, that politically correct drivel nauseates me.

The numbers in the text, unless it is clear from the context that they do not, refer to the endnotes at the bottom of the page just above the Bibliography.

vM

Interracial Marriage

_____________________

A Case Analysis

Presented to Dr. _________

The ________ Theological Seminary

_____________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for 29250

______________________

by

__________________

December 1996

Introduction

The case presented in this paper contains issues whose implications are not limited to the theological, social, psychological, and ethical. There may be other understandings of questions arising from the reader’s perception of the facts here presented. This analysis notes those questions that have manifested in the awareness of its writer. The issue(s) toward which this discussion is oriented are ethical. Serious discussion of non-ethical issues is beyond the scope of this work.
Case

Bill and Grace are planning to be married. He is white and she is black. She has two children from her prior marriage and has been divorced for several years. Both are serious Christian people and are committed to one another. The man’s friends and the woman’s family see their marriage as a normal, inevitable expression of their relationship.

Because of a medically necessary hysterectomy within the last several months Grace is unable to bear more children. Her son (Carlos) and daughter (Zel) like Bill and Bill cares very much about those children.

Recently the four of them drove to a Southern state to visit Bill’ mother, Sue. His parents were divorced many years ago and his father has since died. While there, Bill gave Grace a ring his grandmother wanted him to give to the woman he would marry.

During the visit they interacted with Sue, a brother (Foster)and sister-in-law (Ellen), the surviving husband of the grandmother (Wilson), an uncle (Percy) and his girlfriend (Jenny); also an elderly married couple, one of whom is some variety of cousin. Each of these people with the possible exception of the uncle and his girlfriend claim to be Christians and are members of ______________ congregations.

The interactions between Bill’ relatives and his fiancee and her children were polite and pleasant. Afterward, in a telephone conversation, Sue told Bill that Wilson had said of the upcoming union, “I think this will close more doors for him than it will open,” that he had been, “losing some sleep over it,” and that Wilson thought that Bill would be, “throwing his life away.” She then informed him that some of his friends wouldn’t understand and quoted an old and respected family friend, “Does Bill think I can accept this - because I can’t.” Sue simply withheld approval, cited concerns about different racial and subcultural backgrounds, the difficulty of raising children, and the depth of commitment required.

Issues Inventory/Analysis

As one reads through the scenario provided for analysis one becomes aware that almost every sentence contains one or more issues1. Among them may be found questions that are social, theological, psychological, and ethical in nature. No attempt will be made to answer all the questions asked here, but each is deserving of thought.

Why are Bill and Grace planning to marry? This issue is probably psychological, dealing as it must with the attraction between the two and the mental/emotional benefits derived by each party from that relationship. As a psychological issue, this question is beyond the scope of the present work.

Should persons of different races intermarry? This question deals with issues of right and wrong, thus qualifying as ethical in nature. As an matter of ethics it is suitable for inclusion in the present work. In modified form, the question will be discussed in the following pages.

Should a divorced person remarry? This is an ethical issue opinions about which may be informed by theological, psychological, and sociological thinking. It will not be discussed in this paper although it clearly qualifies for inclusion in an ethical analysis.

Should a person who has never been married marry a divorced person? Like its predecessor, this qualifies for ethical analysis but will not be discussed herein.

How do Grace and Bill understand their Christianity? This is an excellent psychological/theological question the answer to which has important real-world consequences for the couple. It is, however, a little too specific for the present work even if cast in the following form2 : How ought Grace and Bill understand their Christianity?

What do they think commitment is and what is the depth of their commitment one to the other? This is another excellent question which may essentially be psychological or sociological. Although this and the following question may be asked in the form of an ethical query, it will not be included in the discussion because it bears only an attenuated relation to the question which this writer has chosen to explore.

What does each expect of the other in regard to commitment? As noted above, this question could be made to fit an ethical form but still would be found beyond the scope of this paper.

Should a couple who will certainly not produce children marry? While not an issue for this writer, the question is asked because the facts warrant the asking and because, for many evangelical Christians, conception, birth, and their attendant concerns are issues. This question will not be addressed in the present work.

What are the legitimate purposes of marriage? A question which has received such extensive attention by popular theologians and psychologists and also has an ethical dimension. Some legitimate purposes of marriage are mentioned in premise form as part of a Natural Law theory of the subject in the paper’s Argument section.

How might one expect race to bear upon the relationships that develop between Bill and the two children? That race will affect each of the persons involved in the marriage and family group about to be formed is a given - no one would seriously argue otherwise. The question is sociological and psychological in nature and will not be explored as the central theme of this work.

Should the racism inherent in U.S. society be taken into account when persons of different races residing in the U.S. contemplate intermarriage? This is a very good question that can be made more clear by asking how one ought to factor that in. It might be instructive to hear this argued from a cultural relativist standpoint.

What if they live in the South? The previous ‘should’ question becomes a little more pointed and the ‘how’ of it undergoes some change. Another excellent question beyond the soon to be stated scope of this work but which may be seen again in the following pages.

What is the significance of Bill’s family background in conjunction with his decision to marry outside his race? This may be the most crucial question that could be asked of either Bill or Grace. An answer necessarily involves correlation between one’s decision to marry outside one’s own race and one’s familial background. What, really, brings a woman or man to this point? A psychological and social question which has uplifting theological dimensions for the Christian and will, to some extent, receive further treatment in these pages.

How ought one who claims Christ respond to interracial relationships/marriages? This question is clearly ethical. Any response to this issue will, by necessity, have theological dimensions. This question, also, will be dealt with in these pages.

Can one be a racist and a Christian3? This question is one to which the White Evangelical Church in the United States has traditionally answered incorrectly. Recently that white, evangelical subculture has been making noises which seem meant to imply that it is reevaluating its historical position. The Racist Christian Question is one to which the Black Church has long known the answer. It is a question that is theological, sociological, and ethical. This paper addresses peripherally and non-conclusively whether one can be a Christian and a racist.

How ought blood relatives who claim Christ relate to one another as family when there is conflict between family members? This is an ethical question that can best be answered by the applying it to one’s theological understanding. It is too large a question to answer in these pages but may crop up in an attenuated form in the following discussions.

How ought an adult Christian relate to his/her parents when there is serious conflict in the family? This ethical question is one whose answer may be found in understanding what is meant by honoring one’s father and mother as commanded in the Old Testament and affirmed in the Pauline literature of the New. This is yet another excellent question which will not receive attention herein.

May adult Christians of different races intermarry? This is the ethical question the present work is written to address. Had most of the previously discussed questions not been embedded in the case scenario, the issue of whether adult Christians of different races ought to intermarry would have remained.

Position

This writer takes the position that race should not be the factor used to determine whether Bill and Grace ought to wed.

Applying an Ethical Theory: How It Works

It is the opinion of this writer that ethical theories have sets of circumstances applied to them in the form of issues. A theory, existing within the mind of an actual human, seems present more in the form of an ethical bias than a conscious, formal hypothesis. It is the chooser’s4 ethical bias which determines the application of questions derived from fact arising out of the convergence of multiple facts with the real-time presence of actual humans to ethical rules assembled within that bias. The term bias is used here to denote the way in which one tends to respond to conflicting and therefore confusing stimuli. This tendency to respond in a given way works in conjunction with whatever organizing principle is present within a human being. In order for humans to know they are having experiences5 it is necessary that they be able to label, catalog, and file their experiences for remembrance. Remembrance is later reference, and may occur the next nanosecond or the next hour. One knows because one remembers. It may not be going too far to say that one’s experience of education, religion, acceptance, rejection, poverty, wealth, and God help to form and continue to interact with one’s bias.

The preceding paragraph is a rather long-winded and footnoted way of saying that people apply their moral quandaries to some internal ethical system they bring into situations with them. There is no need to acquire an ethical theory to hold against a moral dilemma because one is pre-extant within the human being. Attempting to discern these ethical biases in one’s self and others is an interesting mental exercise.

Identifying the Bias

This paper is written from the perspective of a biblical inerrantist who joyfully affirms that what is not prohibited by Scripture may be permitted. Said affirmation takes into account the Pauline injunction that, ‘“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are beneficial.’6

This inerrantist believes God has laws, and that they are absolute and do not conflict. From this perspective one sees also that human beings experience conflict when confronted with God’s laws and situations arising from their real lives on earth. In these instances God’s laws may seem to conflict, but that is because there is disorder present within God’s created beings. These beings are also finite7, being aware at once of only part of creation, time, space, and the doing of God.

Natural Law theories of ethics seem to recognize the finitude of all flesh by noting that the Creator has supplied an ‘intuitive interface’ with the creation. That is, most of what a being encounters within the ‘creation box’ has an obvious fitness for a particular purpose or set of purposes. Those purposes may apprehended by a created being using its awareness in an ordinary way. For humans this may become a little more complicated, but this writer thinks the principle is generally true.

It is the opinion of this writer that as a being who has limits set by God, a certain flexibility is needed to make right choices within situations as they occur. This situationalism does not require that one only do the ‘loving thing.’ Really, only God’s self knows what the ‘loving thing’ is in every situation. It seems more reasonable to suppose that humans ought to do the thing in a situation that reason, will, character, knowledge of God, knowledge of Scripture, leading of the Holy Spirit say together, “This is the way, walk in it8.”

Argument

The first premise is that although humans may be categorized in terms of race based upon such physical characteristics as skin color, hair texture, bone density, bone structure, and so forth, all these humans are members of the same species. No right thinking person would seriously argue otherwise, and this premise can be proved by reference to the fact that humans from every category of race can mate with one another and produce live young9 who are also capable of reproducing after the human kind.

The second premise is related to the first and is that mutual attraction between members of different races occurs and out of that attraction a desire to mate arises. This can be explained by reference to the previous discussion of the ‘intuitive interface’ that came bundled with the ‘creation box’ - to wit - physiologically men and women of diverse races and ethnicities find in one another an obvious fitness for a particular purpose. That purpose may be variously described as love, sex, mating, marriage, etc. depending on a human person’s religious and social background.

The third premise may be a subset of the first. When men and women of different races come together with sexual purpose, they find that their respective human sexual parts function and fit with varying but thoroughly human degrees of success which may result in the generation of live young who are identifiable as human.

A fourth premise filters down to this argument from a Natural Law theory of marriage. Marriage exists as an institution to provide companionship for women and men, a relationship within which their sexuality can legitimately and exclusively find expression and out of which children are generated and within which they can be raised. That is quite a mouthful but it seems important that those elements be present. All of the elements here noted can be found in matings for life between men and women of different races.

The natural law takes one only so far. Bill and Grace, by virtue of their saving contact with Christ, have more to consider than their natural attraction and inclinations. That they are Christians necessitates the use of something more than the intuitive interface provided to all the inhabitants of God’s creation in analyzing the ethical import of their decision to wed.

It is here that a supernatural dimension necessarily enters the argument. It may be useful to think of it as an active element existing alongside of and within these premises. That supernatural dimension is the verbal revelation of God defined as the canonical scripture of the Old and New Testaments and the work and presence of the Holy Spirit within a human being who is a Christian. This need to consider the canon of Old and New Testaments interacting with the changes wrought within those belonging to Christ Jesus is the fifth premise. Propositions six through nine arise in rapid succession:

The one who is in Christ has become a new creature, a category of human being for whom natural, unredeemed, prejudicial ways of reckoning and organizing perception and experience are no longer relevant10.

Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments does God say that one race of people is superior to any other.

Nowhere do the scriptures of the New Testament prohibit interracial marriage.

The New Testament teaches that reckonings about race, ethnicity, femaleness, and maleness do not have any meaning for those belonging to Christ11.

The first four propositions make clear that there is nothing inherently wrong with intermarriage between men and women of different races. The final four very clearly indicate that race and ethnicity have nothing to do with one’s identity in Christ Jesus. For the believer it is the lord Jesus Christ from whom true identity derives.

These nine statements whose veracity is undeniable combine, in or out of sequence, in such way as to render unavoidable the conclusion that marriage between men and women of different races is permissible. If such marriage is permissible, then it is equally and inescapably true that race ought not to determine whether a Christian man and a Christian woman ought to wed.

Those who claim Christ but define themselves and other believers according to distinctions that Scripture teaches do not exist within the community of faith have been taken you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe. Their thinking is not according to Christ12.

Counter Arguments

There are some possible counter arguments to those presented in support of the position taken in this work. They deal generally with the facts set forth in the case for analysis but also deal with the larger question of interracial marriage. The first of these argue from a Natural Law theory.

One might say that it is obvious that a man and a woman of the same race are more clearly suited to one another for the purposes of mating and child-rearing. Nature provides a sort of color and feature coding which allows normal people easily choose a sexual/marriage partner from a pool of those most fitting for the purpose.

In contradiction, it may be said that this ‘color coding’ is evidently found adequate by many people, it is not sufficient for all. If it were, then white men and black women would be indifferent to one another; black men and white women would find one another uninteresting. However, such is evidently not always the case. Taken to an absurd extreme it might be supposed that black people with dark skin ought to seek mates from similarly complected black people and pink complected white people ought to mate only with other pink complected whites. In this way Nature’s Color Coding Scheme is best effected. Taken further, one might argue that one ought to mate with one’s siblings of the other sex because such a sex/marriage partner is the most genetically similar to one’s self. In addition to being un-biblical, such a position would incur serious social penalties in most societies.

One might also argue that Bill and Grace ought not marry because the purpose of marriage is procreation and it is a given that this couple will never reproduce. In support of that position, it is predictable that Genesis 1:28 will be used as a proof text13. In contradiction, it may be said that the command given to first man and first woman to be fruitful and multiply has been obeyed. Furthermore, that command is nowhere repeated in the New Testament writings. It is of interest at this point to note that in the Acts Narrative at the place where the Noachic Code is given by the Jerusalem Church to Paul and Barnabas to pass on to their Gentile converts, the command to be fruitful and multiply is conspicuously absent14 from the place one would expect to find it repeated in the New Testament. The Gospels contain many sayings of Jesus about fruit from vines and trees15. The Epistles also contain numerous references to ‘fruit’16 and the bearing thereof, yet not one out of all the passages in either the Gospels or the Epistles containing these remarks can reasonably be interpreted as having to do with procreation.

It may be argued that since the New Testament does not command interracial marriage, said intermarriage cannot be allowed. It is true that some people believe that the only things permitted are those things the Scripture commands. However, that rigidity may be countered by references in both Old and New Testaments wherein divorce is permitted but not commanded. Is God insane? Does God give verbal revelation to humankind in the canon of Scripture with the intent to trap and to trick those beings created in the image of God? Is God the devil? The answer to these unsettling questions is self-evidently and emphatically, “No!” Furthermore, it has already been argued that the New Testament declares that there are no barriers of race and ethnicity between believers.

Lastly, someone may well ask, “How will growing up in a home with their black mother and her white husband affect Grace’s black children?” It is often noted that African American children frequently experience a lack of beneficial African American male role models. The question and the statement that follows take into account the pervasive and shameful reality of racism in the United States. A reality which is more overt in the American South but is bonded to positions of power within every institution in this nation’s societal system. It is a reality that ought to be present within the Christian’s awareness because it is present to an extreme and shocking degree within what passes for the Church in these United States. The question asked above is one for which this writer has no answer. However, one may argue reasonably and biblically that those children growing up on the cutting edge of God’s truth, raised by people who love one another and love them, raised by a woman and man who take seriously the verbal revelation of God will have experiences that will build their characters and cause them to think, feel, and ask difficult questions. It is arguable that Grace’s children will grow up into adults who can live without tidy, simple answers to the questions life raises and who will have increased awareness and who will be taught of God.

Conclusion

The goal of this paper has been to demonstrate that race should not be the factor used to determine whether Grace and Bill ought to marry. This writer believes that the argument presented clearly achieves the stated goal having, as it does, the support of scientific fact as evidenced by the Natural Law analysis coupled with the support God and Scripture as evidenced by the biblical analysis. Counter arguments have been raised which are not entirely imaginary the last of which this writer cannot answer to his complete satisfaction. However, one walks life’s road with the knowledge that there may be no satisfactory answer to one’s reasonable, difficult, and painful questions - yet one takes courage and walks that road.

End Notes

1. As an aid to comprehension, please note that every question raised herein will be subject an analysis of its own, the elements of which are:

1. The question/issue itself

2. Identification of the category into which this writer places the issue.

3. A determination as to whether the issue is appropriate for the scope of this work.

2. In which case, though still an excellent question which ought to be asked, it may be unanswerable.

3. This writer believes that one cannot be both racist and Christian.

4. Ethics is about how one chooses to act or refrain from acting on sundry options within specific situations or types of situations.

5. One’s awareness may be thought of as an invisible sphere-like ‘area’ that exists in time, through space, and may extend into what William James refers to as the “the Unseen.” This ‘bubble’ has one’s self at its core, and moves in all directions the human person moves. All that intersects from whichever direction with one’s awareness interacts with one’s senses (the organs of this awareness). This awareness is as much a part of the human person as the body to which the human is bonded. (What this writer calls awareness is not synonymous with what some new religious movements identify as one’s astral body) An inventory of a student’s awareness might include: 1) her desk; 2) other students in the classroom; 3) the pen in her hand; 4) articles of clothing she is wearing; 5) the instructor; 6) what is being taught; 7) her own internal bodily processes; 8) what is going on in the hallway; 9) events transpiring out of doors; 10) the chilling breeze entering the room through an open window; 11) calculations of probabilities of interpersonal events both near and distant; 12) a reckoning of time; 13) feelings of sleepiness or interest or annoyance or joy, and so forth.

6. I Cor. 6:12a NRSV.

7. The state of being finite or limited is not a symptom of disorder, but is from God. See Job 14:5

8. Upon reflection, this writer notes that the elements noted here when present in a human who is in a given situation tend usually to generate acts or omissions that may be defined as “loving.”

9. N.B. It is clear that humans who, for whatever reason, are unable to reproduce are still human and reference can be made to general physiology as proof.

10. Please read 2 Cor. 5:16-21.

11. See Galatians 3:23-29 and Colossians 3:5-11. Other distinctions, apparently, signify for the Christian. The greatest of these divisions between believers is marital status (Matt. 19:3-9;Heb. 13:4).

12. This phrasing is lifted almost verbatim from Col. 2:8, NRSV.

13. Gen. 1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

14. Acts 15:22-29, but especially vv. 28 and 29.

15. There are too many to list, check a concordance for references.

16. See especially Galatians 5:22.

Bibliography

Driskill, Lawrence. Cross Cultural Marriages and the Church. Pasadena: Hope Publishing House, 1995.

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experiences. New York: Vintage Books/Library of America, 1990.

Perkins, John. Let Justice Roll Down. Ventura: Regal Books, 1986.

Perkins, Spencer & Rice, Chris. More than Equals: Racial Healing for the Sake of ` the Gospel. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Yance, Norman Alexander. Religion Southern Style: Southern Baptists and Society in Historical Perspective. Special Studies Series No. 4. Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978.