Sproul 2.0 & McAtee 1.0 Discuss Inter-Racial Marriage

Ask RC: Is it a sin to marry outside ones race?

It is interesting that increasingly certain high profile leaders of Evangelicalism find themselves compelled to deal with the issue of inter-racial marriage. R.C. 2.0 seems to return to it with some regularity. John Piper is forever harping on the subject. It is also interesting that very few black preachers are giving the same answer to this question as most white Evangelicals are giving to this question. What black preachers are standing up and saying that it is sin for black families to oppose giving their daughters to white men?

R.C. 2.0 now “answers” his question.

“Yes, of course. Happily, in every jurisdiction I am aware of, it is not even legally possible to marry outside ones race. Though there are some arguing that such should be legal, even the “gay” “marriage” movement, by and large, disdains the notion. The Bible is abundantly clear that marriage is only for those of the human race, and to extend the institution beyond that is wrong.”

The confusion here is thick.

1.) R.C. 2.0 confuses race with species. The question that we began with was not, “Is it sin to marry outside of one’s species,” but was instead, “is it a sin to marry outside of one’s race.” Does R.C. 2.0 really believe that there are Christians somewhere confused over whether or not God approves of marriage outside of one’s species?

2.) Why introduce the issue of legality? Even if it were legally possible to marry outside of one’s species would that legality make any difference on whether or not such a marriage was sinful or not?

3.) It is not possible to extend the institution of marriage so that, for example, a man and a horse could marry. The word “marriage” has a objective meaning that can not be extended beyond men and women.

Within the circle of humanity, God does provide a number of other prohibitions. Marriage, for instance, is, according to the Bible, one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4 -5). Marriage is also only between either two believers, or two unbelievers (II Corinthians 6:14). Leviticus 18 gives us the laws of consanguinity, affirming that we may not marry those who are too close kin. The Bible forbids marrying those who have been illegitimately divorced (Matthew 19:9). The only other biblical prohibition that I am aware of is that one cannot divorce, marry another spouse, and then, after a second divorce, or the death of the second spouse, remarry the first (Deuteronomy 24:4).

Does the Bible forbid marrying outside ones culture, ones skin color, ones nation? By no means. Deuteronomy 21: 11-14 gives explicit warrant for a Jewish man to take a wife from among the women of a conquered nation. Though not as compelling, we in turn have biblical examples of godly men who married outside their national identity- Moses and his Cushite wife (Numbers 12:1), and of course Boaz and Ruth..

1.) One man and one woman. Normatively that is true, although there might be times where the non-normative might rear its head in the kind of polygamy we find in the Old Testament.

2.) Marriage is to be between two believers who share commonality. R.C. 2.0 certainly wouldn’t advocate that as long as a 80 year old woman and a 18 year old man were both Christians it therefore would be normatively the proper thing for them to marry. So, yes we agree that as far as Christians go they are to marry only other believers but we would add that they are only to marry other believers with whom there exists a shared extensive commonality between the two marrying — a extensive commonality that the common ground of both being Christian might not bridge. The man who is marrying is looking for a “Helpmeet” which means one who is a reflection or a mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. A man and a woman might both be Christian but because there cultures are so significantly different it still might be a sin of lack of wisdom of them to marry.

R. J. Rushdoony could offer on this point,

“Moreover, if she is to be ‘a help as before him,’ a mirror, there must be a common cultural background. This militates against marriages across cultures and across races where there is no common culture or association possible.

The new unit is a continuation of the old unit but an independent one; and there has to be a unity or else it is not a marriage. Thus, the attempt of many today to say there is nothing in the Bible against mixed marriages whether religiously or culturally is altogether unfounded. We do not have to go to the Mosaic law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) to demonstrate that, because here in the very beginning (Genesis) we are told that she must be a help meet—bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh—sharing his faith, sharing a common background, a common culture, a common desire to fulfill his calling under God. This, then, is the meaning of marriage in the Biblical sense.”

R.J. Rushdoony,
The Doctrine of Marriage

3.) We agree with R.C. 2.0’s theonomic reasoning where he affirms that the Old Testament law still applies in order to provide boundaries as to degrees of acceptable consanguinity for marriage and where the law forbids divorce and later remarriage to the previously divorced spouse subsequent to yet another divorce from a subsequent wife. Would that all Christians would reason with this kind of excellent theonomic mindset.

4.) Now we turn to the R.C. 2.0’s insistence that the Bible does not forbid inter-racial marriage, and I would say that is true to the same degree that the Bible does not forbid polygamy or trans-ageist marriages. I would say that just as there is no outright forbidding of polygamy in Scripture so there is no outright forbidding of inter-racial marriage and there is no outright forbidding of 85 year old Christian men marrying 16 year old Christian women. However, in all cases such marriages clearly are normatively not the better part of wisdom and so would be sinful to pursue.

R.C. 2.0 makes appeal to Deuteronomy 21:11 but I do not think this really works for him for this passage is referring to defensive wars that Israel was fighting, and as such, there are a couple of things here to keep in mind in considering Deuteronomy 21:11 as a proof text.

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife,

First, these wars fought by Israel would have been fought against local semitic nations who were closely related to Israel. Therefore these marriages were more akin to a Norman man taking and then marrying a Scott woman as booty of war then a Victorian Christian Woman marrying a Christian Hottentot man completely outside the context of war. We are not really talking inter-racial marriage in Deuteronomy 21.

Second, this could not have included Canaanites, who the Israelites were forbidden to marry.

Third, this is by no means an expression of what God considers normative for marriage. Deut. 21 also regulates but allows polygamy, but we wouldn’t cite Deut. 21 to defend the idea that polygamy is normative.

Fourth, even were we to use Deuteronomy 21:11 as a proof text it would not prove what R.C. is seeking to prove but would only prove that when Christians today go to war they may take war brides from peoples closely ethnically related to them. I’n not advocating that Deuteronomy 21:11 teaches such. I am saying that if you try to use it the way R.C. is trying to use it that is all it could teach.

5.) Doubtless R.C. 2.0 knows that the Reformed interpreters throughout the years have not agreed that Moses married a second wife. In point of fact if one examines the notes from the original Geneva Bible you will find advanced there what you find advanced by Matthew Henry and others that Moses did not marry a second wife.

Zipporah, Moses wife, was a Midianite, and because Midian bordered on Ethiopia, it is sometimes referred to in the scriptures by this name.

Likewise there is considerable debate as to whether Ruth the Moabitess was a Jew who had relocated to Moab earlier or whether she was a original inhabitant of Moab. However, in both cases, as R.C. himself says, these argument are hardly compelling.

“There have, in the past, been fine and godly men who have argued otherwise. There are likely some fine and godly men who would still so argue. The Bible, however, despite the level of detail to which it does go on whom we may or may not marry, does not so argue. The ancient creeds of the church make no such argument. The great confessional statements of the Reformation make no such argument.

R. C. fails to mention here that the reason that these issues were never spoken to confessionally is that there has never been a need to speak confessionally to these issues. During the time of the Westminster Confession who was advocating for Cultural Marxism or Globalism or Multiculturalism? Since no one was advocating such philosophies, therefore we would not expect them to be dealt with confessionally.

The Bible nor the Confessions also do not spell out that we should not marry our tender aged sons to octogenarian women and yet who among us would suggest that because it does not speak in detail to such a situation therefore it is perfectly acceptable?

Some have argued that my own position is grounded in worldliness. Those outside the church are always seeking to break down barriers, to deconstruct cultures. Miscegenation, my critics would argue, plays right into the hands of the political and theological left. I would offer two retorts. First, a healthy understanding of the antithesis, of the great battle between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman doesn’t mean we are to be reactionary, that we are to embrace the opposite of what the world embraces always and everywhere. We aren’t called to walking on our hands because the unbelievers walk on their feet. Because those outside the kingdom of God retain the remnants of the image of God, we should expect to agree with them from time to time.

First, we must note that R.C. 2.0’s position does indeed play into the hands of the Cultural Marxists. We see how R.C. 2.0 is playing into the hands of the Cultural Marxists through this quote from R. J. Rushdoony,

“Now in the religion of humanism, the faith of the one world order, man is deified, and because man is deified and personified in this world order there can be no division, no disunity tolerated in the Godhead. As a result this means that the unity of mankind is a necessity. There can be no division, no differences, no separation, no discrimination between man and man in this (humanist) faith. All men must be brought together and made one without any differences. To permit any differences is to destroy the unity of the godhead….

But in any such theology the basic sin becomes no longer apostasy from God or what we would call moral evil but disunity. And they among the churches who are infected with this kind of thinking which have made the one world order their substitute God. And among those who are outside of the churches, the great sin is disunity. And different races, different churches, different organizations must all be brought together. And war which separates men and discrimination which separates men constitutes the real evil.”

So, we appreciate R.C. understanding why we are concerned about his position being born of “worldliness.”

R.C. invoking common grace is merely a begging of the question. Yes, there are times where we will agree with those who despise Christianity but the fact that there may be such times hardly proves that this is one of those times or one of those issues where we will or should agree.

“Second, even a cursory glance of the literature demonstrates that it is actually those who argue against marrying outside ones culture, that were most influenced by worldly wisdom. Darwin’s theory of evolution created a paradigm by which even Christians began to judge one “race” as genetically superior to another. It is true enough that some cultures are better than others. What makes one culture superior, however, isn’t genetics, but the impact of the Christian faith. Low levels of melanin didn’t build Europe, the gospel did. Matching levels of melanin in turn won’t make a godly marriage. The gospel will. Away with legalism that adds to God’s perfect law.

1.) Note that R.C. seems not to have a solid grip on the idea of culture. If culture is merely theology externalized, as many Christians insist, (more on that later) then advocating that a Christian might marry outside their culture, is a advocacy for marrying outside one’s Christian theology, if their culture is a faithful approximation of their Christ exalting theology. One simply cannot dismiss cultural issues when it comes to marriage as if those cultural issues are so much unnecessary flotsam and jetsam. Culture matters and for Christians to marry willy nilly across cultural barriers is not wise.

There also seems to be a latent assumption here by R.C. that all Christian cultures will look the same, as if a Christian culture of Japanese would be the same as the Christian Culture of Belorussians therefore meaning that Christians Japanese and Christians Belorussians would be a God approved match for marriage. And yet, do we really need to conclude that all genuinely Christian cultures will look alike?

2.) R.C. really must be aware that the whole concept of race well predates Darwin. No less than Shakespeare would incorporate race into at least eight of his plays as the great bard examined the inevitable frictions between the races in a way palatable to theatergoers. Such recognition of race in other literature also long predates Darwin. To suggest a racial consciousness is only explained by Darwin could be taken as an attempt to poison the well against those who disagree with R.C. 2.0’s muffled and muted multiculturalism.

3.) We half way agree with R.C. on the issue of melanin and culture building. Clearly, the acceptance of Biblical Christianity goes a long way towards explaining how culture advances. We would even argue that beautiful culture is not possible apart from Biblical Christianity. However, we think R.C. and those who reason like him communicate a denial regarding man’s humanity turning man into some kind of Gnostic being. It is true that what a man and men believes and believe has huge impact on what a man becomes and builds. We might call this man’s spiritual dimension. However, it is also true that what a man is, genetically and physically, has a huge impact on what a man becomes and builds. I can no more ignore my humanity when it comes to culture building then I can ignore my belief system. This is why we insist that culture is not merely theology externalized but rather would add that culture is theology externalized as that theology is poured over ethnicity. Yes, Europe is explained by the spread of Christianity but it is also explained by the physicality and genetic coding of the Europeans — physicality and genetic coding that was ordained and given solely by the grace of God — that built Europe as that Christianity was embraced by those very real humans. Men are more then just Gnostic beings with ideas floating around in their heads. Who they are in their divinely given corporeality matters.

4.) When R.C. throws the charge of legalism around (after throwing around the charge of Darwinism) he betrays how much angst this issues causes him. Earlier he noted that fine and godly men have argued differently from him but now he calls those fine and godly men Legalist and Darwinist. Which is it R.C.?

5.) R.C. seeks to reduce race to the issue of melanin. Such a view reveals again what a reductio view of our corporeal humanness that R.C. has. Anyone who has dealt with other races realizes that race is much much more then merely melanin.

That is why we are having this discussion.

6.) Where R.C. gets off in charging people who disagree with him as “Legalist” is quite beyond me. I wonder if he would mind too terribly in providing documentation where people are adding the work of proper marriage to God’s grace in order to be saved?

Apparent Contradiction On Law Resolved

I John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

The role of the law has been debated vigorously throughout Church history. As far back as the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) there has been tension and conflict regarding the place of the law. That tension and conflict continues today.

In the passages above we find Paul making the law the minister of death. The apostle teaches elsewhere that the law is a minister of death and brings on us the wrath of God. Paul teaches that the law was given to increase sin, and that it lives in order to kill us. King David though can say of the Law that it is “sweeter than the honeycomb, and more desirable than gold” and John says that God’s commandments are not burdensome.

How do we reconcile these different statements regarding God’s law?

We must realize that St. Paul, King David, and St. John are looking at the law from different standpoints. St. Paul looks at the law as it comes to the man in Adam, speaking of the law as it condemns who we are as we lie in Adam. St. John and David look at the law as it is considered as who we are in Christ. As we struggle against the old Adamic nature we understand that the Law stands against us and convicts us and is impossible to satisfy. As we put off that old man and put on the new man created in Christ Jesus we understand that the law is to us a gracious guide to life that we esteem and desire and do not find burdensome.

The problem is that even in Christ we remain both men. Yes, we are in Christ and have died to sin and have been resurrected with Christ so that we delight in God’s commands and do not find them burdensome, and yet we continue to contend against the previous self and so we need to have God’s law come to us to remind us of our need for Christ.

Our theologies run into trouble when we fail to speak the truth about each side of the equation. When we fail emphasize to believers that God’s commands are not burdensome we take away motivation from God’s people to walk in God’s revelation. When we fail to emphasize to believers that God’s law never justified anybody we create the possibility of self-righteousness. Thus we must speak in both ways. We must continue to use the law as a means whereby we see that our only hope is found in Christ and His righteousness and we must continue to use the law as a means whereby we reveal or love to God.

We must remember that the law is said to be not burdensome by St. John as far as we are filled with the Spirit and so endued with heavenly power. For the believer, however much who we are in Adam may resist, it is the case that there is no real enjoyment except in following God.

Century Of The Self

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyPzGUsYyKM

If you want an aide in explaining the 20th century and how we have arrived at where we are today I would highly recommend the above link. It is my conviction that this or something like this should be ingested by every pastor in America worth their salt.

It is a four hour video that deals with how psychoanalysis has created and controlled consumerism by its manipulation of the sovereign self. It also delves in how pychobabble has become hegemonic in business and politics. The psychological has become hegemonic in business because the Corporate realm used the “insights” of pyscho-analysis to sell product and to manipulate the market. The psychological has become hegemonic in Politics because the same insights that were gleaned by Corporate America were used by the Political parties and consultants to create and manage coalitions and constituencies.

The reason that having a grip on this kind of material is so important is because the hegemony of the pagan psychological is not restricted to the business and political realm but now rules over education, family and church realms. As one views the video one begins to realize how much of the technique used by Corporate America to push product has been brought into the Church to sell Jesus. From focus groups (church small groups) to  the art of giving people what they want to the importation of the psychological into the Pastor’s ability to counsel, the Church has become a mirror of the satisfaction of the self.

The  documentary chronicles shifts in how the self  has been handled over the decades since the 1920’s but in each case the self is seen as being autonomous. At different periods the self has been seen as irrational and governed by primal desires,  to being basically good and so in need of being released, to being destructive and so in necessity of elites providing control. At no time however, in the last almost century, has there been any consideration of the self in relation to the God of the Bible. The self is autonomous and so needs to be either controlled by elites through mass consumption and political managing, or set free in a Dionysian frenzy to be channeled by clever marketing.

One comes away from the documentary firmly believing that it really is the case that the pagan is socially engineered. Apart from the God of the Bible and His Christ one easily become the “New Soviet Man,” or the “New Man” of whatever regime is in control. If there is no objective standard by which one can find a means by which the self can find identity then the self can only remain a subjective self always measuring itself against the larger cultural framework that is set up as a subjective (and so unreal) objective standard.

In the video you discover some important names that you’ve probably never heard of before. From Edward Bernays to Anna Freud to William Reich to Herbert Marcuse to many others one begins to discover some of the unseen hands behind the century of the self and the social engineering that has transpired.

The documentary underscores something else that I’ve been saying for several years now. The documentary makes the epistemologically self conscious realize that the way that much of the Church and its pastorate operates in the West today is  counter-productive to Biblical Christianity. The Church and its pastorate has largely made peace with the socially engineered paganism that is now characteristic of Western Christianity. That this is so is seen in the reality that the goal of the Church today is to help people adjust to this false reality that is called the “century of the self.” Pastors have redefined Christianity against this backdrop and use what they now call Christianity as a lever to have people conform and so get on in this alien world and life view. The Church and the Pastorate that is being the Church should instead be telling people that there is a problem if they are comfortable in the false paradigm that has been created and is known as the “century of the self.”

Pastors and Churches that go with the socially engineered self of the times will have the opportunity to advance far in this world, if that is their vision. Pastors and Churches who see through the shell game and lift their voices to announce the Emperor’s nakedness will likely struggle.

Choose ye this day whom you will serve.

Dr. David VanDrunen’s Silliness

#1 — “A two-kingdoms doctrine, distinguishes what is uniquely ‘Christian’ from what is simply ‘human’ [….] Generally speaking, to be ‘human’ here and now means living in the common kingdom under the Noahic covenant. Christians share the life and activities of the common kingdom with all human beings. What differentiates them from the rest of humanity is their identification with the redemptive kingdom and all that that entails.” (p.167)

#2 — “Learning, working, and voting are not uniquely Christian tasks, but common tasks. Christians should always be distinguished from unbelievers subjectively: they do all things by faith in Christ and for his glory. But as an objective matter, the standards of morality and excellence in the common kingdom are ordinarily the same for believers and unbelievers: they share these standards in common under God’s authority in the covenant with Noah.” (p.31)

#3 — “[T]he normative standards for cultural activities are, in general, not distinctively Christian. By this I mean that the moral requirements that we expect of Christians in cultural work are ordinarily the same moral requirements that we expect of non-Christians, and the standards of excellence for such work are the same for believers and unbelievers.” (p.168)

#4 — “[A] writer promotes a ‘contemporary Christian perspective on business,’ which promotes the principles of fair trading practices for workers, healthy local businesses, and Christian-run start-up businesses that ‘lovingly serve the needs of fellow citizens.’ [These] principles are admirable, but there is nothing distinctively ‘new creation’ or ‘Christian’ about […] them. All of these principles are grounded in the present created order and the terms of the Noahic covenant.” (p.193-4)

Living in God’s Two Kingdoms
David VanDrunen

#1 — Note how R2K aficionado VanDrunen abstracts Christian from human identity as if one can be human without at the same time being Christian or non-Christian. VanDrunen sets up a human identity that operates in his common realm that is undefined by that identities relation to or non relation to Jesus Christ.

Also note on this score that any thinking that suggests that the embrace of Christ makes one more truly “human” according to God’s original design must necessarily be seen as fatuous. To be human, according to VanDrunen, is to live in the common realm. Whether we are Christian or non Christian is irrelevant as it relates to identity as “human.”

Finally, we see on this quote that once again, Van Drunen has dualistically compartmentalized the common realm from the redemptive realm. In the redemptive realm we can call ourselves “Christian,” with all that that means but in the “common realm,” we are merely abstracted humans who engage along with those who hate Christ in common cultural endeavors and callings.

#2 / #3 — It is true that “as an objective matter, the standards of morality and excellence in the common kingdom are ordinarily the same for believers and unbelievers: they share these standards in common under God’s authority in the covenant with Noah,” but what is not true is that those who are Christ haters recognize and embrace these standards of morality and excellence. I very rarely use the language of a “self evident” truth, but I would think that VanDrunen would recognize that the very issue he insists Christians have in common with those who hate Christ are the issues that our current culture is tearing itself apart fighting over. The morality of the Ten Billion dollar a year porn industry and its standard for “excellence,” is quite a different morality and quite a different “excellent” than most Christian humans living in his common realm. The morality and excellence of outcome based education in the government schools is quite a different morality and excellence than most Christian humans have who are living in this common realm.

#4 — In VanDrunen’s common realm world who defines “fair” and what is the standard being used to define “fair?” In VanDrunen’s common realm where exactly do we find these principles grounded in the created order? I thought nature was red in tooth and claw? Does VanDrunen really believe that the evolutionary Capitalist or the Businessman who is seeking to advance the cause of Allah is going to have the same standards of fairness for their business as is the Biblical Christian?

It is difficult to believe at times that the R2K crowd is serious in all of this. Do they really believe that such a social order can be governed by their Christian dualism?