THOUGHTS ON RACE AND MARRIAGE

 

THOUGHTS ON RACE AND MARRIAGE

 

              From time to time the subject of race and marriage will come up, and occasionally I will be asked my thoughts about it. So, since you asked (or even if you did not), here they are. I figure I have as much right to an opinion as any other man.

              When you ask me that question, there are two things I want to know from you before the conversation even begins. First, I want you to define very specifically what you mean by “race,” because it does make a difference. Second, are you asking my opinion regarding all the races, or about two particular races specifically?

              Consider this fact: EVERY SET OF FULL SIBLINGS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS HAD A DIFFERENT GENETIC MAKEUP. So, if we define “race” that narrowly, then all of us would have been in either an interracial marriage or married to our sibling. Indeed, the United States has acknowledged the genetic problems with incestuous relationships to the point that the states generally outlaw marriages between certain types of close relatives. So, the law of our land REQUIRES marriage between different “races” if you want to define the term that finely.

              Some will object that I am being overly picky about definitions. “There are only three races – black, white and yellow.” Oh? Then tell me what race Polynesians are, and Mexicans, and American Indians, and Mongolians. Is a marriage between a Samoan and a Cherokee an interracial marriage?

              And when you start this discussion, you also have to define what is meant by “full-blooded.” If a person is 63/64^ths white and 1/64^th Oriental, is he full-blooded white? What if he is 53/64ths white? What if he is 33/64ths white, barely over half? Come on now, you have to define your terms. If you are going to make a rule, then you have to be specific about what it takes to constitute a violation of the rule.

              And really, do you know what race you are? Do you REALLY know? Most of us do not know our ancestry beyond five or six generations. Once we get on the other side of the ocean, our lineage disappears into the mists of history. What races were your ancestors who lived in 2000 B.C.? What races do you come from, regardless of how you define “race”? The fact is that you CANNOT know, and thus it would seem to be to be somewhat hypocritical for you to censure someone for a marriage when you cannot PROVE absolutely that you are not the product of the same thing from some point in the past?

              If you are a fan of movies from the Golden Age of Hollywood, you probably would recognize an actress named Dona Drake, who was active from 1933 to 1977. She was an attractive and vivacious woman who usually was cast as a character of Middle Eastern or Latino descent. The truth was that she was reportedly three-fourths black and one-fourth white, but most people probably would have guessed that she was Latino. (She had a prominent role in the Hope/Crosby classic, “Road To Bali.”) She was married to a well-known Hollywood fashion designer, but there was little outcry about it because she APPEARED to be Latino.

              If we define race too closely, then my wife and I probably constitute an interracial marriage. She is mostly of German heritage and I am mostly Welsh. That fact doesn’t bother me at all, but I would guess that Adolph Hitler would not have been too fond of the union had we gotten married in 1940, since he was very insistent upon Germans maintaining their “racial purity.”

              So, Mark Green, do you consider interracial marriages to be sinful? Certainly, in some cases. If the marriage is adulterous, it definitely would be sinful, regardless of the races involved. (For the record, I am VASTLY more concerned regarding adulterous relationships than I am about those that are interracial.) It is often the case that interracial marriages result from a rebellious attitude toward parents on the part of the children who are marrying, and such an attitude is sinful regardless of the circumstances.

              However, if one of my daughters had married a man of another race who was morally upright, courteous, responsible, law-abiding, kind and respectful, and a good provider and protector for his family, I might have had some concerns about it because of the inherent difficulties, but I would FAR rather have had him as a son-in-law than a white man who was a complete cull – and there are a multitude of those running around loose who ought to be locked up.

              I often say that we will get the wrong answers if we ask the wrong questions. The pertinent question in this discussion involves cultures, not races. What difference does it make what external physical differences a couple has, such as the color of their skin, as long as they are unified in their principles? However, CULTURAL differences can put a tremendous amount of stress upon a marriage, and ultimately upon the children, and those factors have to be considered. Even if both husband and wife are white, if one of them is Russian and one is German, given the history of the bloody conflicts between those two countries, I would imagine that there are going to be inherent problems in the household. (It is bad enough if one of them is a Yankee and the other from the South.)

              There is a difference between an act being inadvisable, irresponsible, or reckless, and its being inherently immoral. Very frequently I see intercultural marriages that seem to me to be so inadvisable as to be grossly irresponsible given the circumstances; but to say that an interracial marital union is immoral, IN AND OF ITSELF IN EVERY CASE, is to say more than I can defend from a scriptural standpoint.

              My observation has been that when someone is vehement and vocal in opposing interracial marriages, his objection does not apply to all races, but to only a couple of specified races; and the opposition is due to the fact that the culture attached to one of the races is so repulsive to that person that he has made a moral issue out of it. In other words, his opposition is based upon prejudice, not upon principle; and the individual has gone so far as to manufacture a supposed principle out of his prejudices. Let me be clear that there are indeed cultures that I find very objectionable, but my objection is to the CONDUCT generally found in those cultures, not to some physical characteristics of the people that they could not help having in the first place.

Ill-advised? Frequently. Reckless? Very often. Irresponsible? Sometimes. Those, however, are not the question we are discussing here. The question is whether or not such a marital union is immoral IN ITSELF, and I find no basis in either logic or Scripture to uphold such a view. If someone can show me one, then I will adjust my position.

Think about it. What if a man had objected to his daughter marrying your son purely because your son is ugly? Is being ugly on the outside any less valid of an objection to a marriage than a slight difference in skin pigment on the outside?

And think about this: first graders on a playground pay no attention at all to racial characteristics. Racial prejudice is a learned reaction. And did not the Apostle say, “In malice be ye children?”

And then another thing. Prejudice in itself is not always a bad thing. It is not invalid logic to generalize negatively. After all, it was that same Apostle who said, “The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.” But those expressions refer to conduct that was commonly found among the people of Crete, and not to their race as such.

So, Mark Green, are you in favor of mixed-race marriages? In many cases, probably not, because the sad fact is that molding together the habits and opinions of two sinful human beings is hard enough without adding any external factors to make things more difficult. Plus, there are always the effects that are suffered by the children because, whether we like it or not, people ARE prejudiced, and the children are left to deal with that. In many cases mixed-race marriages are ill-advised, at least, for those reasons.

However, my caution regarding such unions is based upon practical factors, NOT moral factors. “Marriage is honorable in all,” the apostle said. If there is no immorality involved, then the marital relationship is honorable. However, note that he said “honorable in all,” and not “advisable in all.”

It is worth noting that Ruth, a Moabitess, and Rahab, a Canaanitess, were both ancestors of the Lord Jesus, and both of them were involved in mixed marriages. Would any of you care to tell them that they did wrong?