Check Yourself: The Litmus Test for Racial Prejudice
Church historian Elizabeth Isichei writes, “Inter-ethnic marriage is the litmus test of racial prejudice.”
That quote comes from an article by Daniel Hays called “A Biblical Perspective of Interracial Marriage.”
In his article, Hays points out the glaring inconsistencies among many white Christians, especially in the South: “Interracial marriage lies at the very heart of race relations.”
“The issues it raises test uniquely the contours of our deepest beliefs and intuitions, fears and hopes about race, race relations, and the American future” (Randall Kennedy, Interracial Intimacies).
“Nothing brings out our hidden, forgotten prejudices like interracial marriages” (Harold Myra in Christianity Today).
“Many of our church members would affirm racial equality and view themselves as being accepting of other races. They would not consider themselves as being prejudiced or racist at all. However, many of these same Christians strongly oppose the marriage of anyone in their family to someone of another race or ethnicity” (Hays).
Why is it like this? Why is the church so far behind on racial issues like these? It seems we have allowed ourselves to think it’s not a problem… or we’ve thought it’s a problem that doesn’t need to be solved.
Hays lays out his case for interracial marriage with an interesting study of Old Testament texts and practices. Here’s a brief summary of his article.
First, the author argues that in Israel’s formation, it “was not an ethnic community,” but a faith community. As such, it was composed of people from many different ethnic backgrounds, including people with dark skin.
Second, he examines the text regarding Moses and his “Cushite” wife (Num. 12:1). From this text, non-biblical ancient texts, and cultural studies, he argues that the term “Cushite” refers to someone with black skin. Hays concludes that “the case is extremely strong that Moses married a black Cushite woman from the Cushite civilization south of Egypt.” He concludes from the narratives that “clearly God affirms Moses’ marriage to this black woman.”
Third, Hays shows that the Old Testament prohibitions against intermarrying are prohibitions against marrying people of other religions.
Finally, the author points to the genealogy of Jesus and says, “at this time period Jewish genealogies usually were used to establish the purity of their lineage. Yet, Matthew seems to intentionally stress the mixed racial nature of Jesus’ lineage.” He also quotes Craig Keener on this genealogy: “For Matthew, godly interracial marriages are the signs of ethnic reconciliation and the church’s mission to reconcile representatives of all nations under Christ’s Lordship.”
The theological conclusion of the article is this: “interracial intermarriage is strongly affirmed by Scripture. Marrying unbelievers, on the other hand, is strongly prohibited.”
Here are a few more quotes from Hays’ conclusion: “White families frequently rise up in arms when their children want to marry blacks, regardless of how strong their Christian faith is. On the other hand, white Christian young adults can marry other whites with little opposition even if the faith of their selected mate is virtually non-existent. Such behavior reflects the church’s weak theological understanding of Scripture on this subject.”
“The common cultural ban on intermarriage lies at the heart of the racial division in the church. White Christians who say that they are not prejudiced but who vehemently oppose interracial marriages are not being honest.”
If “godly interracial marriages are the signs of ethnic reconciliation and the church’s mission to reconcile representatives of all nations under Christ’s Lordship,” then we must repent of our prejudice. For in striving against godly interracial marriages (and ethnically diverse churches), we are striving against God Himself.
