Black and Reformed

[JM]

Following rmwilliamsll lead, I thought I’d ask what the first impressions of the Reformed/Presbyterian Church was, from our brothers and sisters of colour? My wife is black and is having a hard time feeling comfortable as we move and fellowship more often with Reformed folks, she is always the only person of colour, and is having a hard time adjusting.

Any thoughts? We attended a few Dutch Reformed Churches up here in Canada and both of us were made to feel unwelcomed, getting over the shoulder glances, and no one even spoke to us. Has anyone else experienced this? I understand this isn't a "Reformed" Church problem, but that's where my wife and I are headed, just thought I'd ask.

Peace,
j

 

[strengthinweakness]

I am not a person of colour (unless you count "white" as a colour ), but I just want to say how saddened I am to read of your experiences with your wife in Reformed churches thus far. I truly hope your that experiences are the exception to the rule. At Capitol Hill Baptist Church, the Reformed Baptist church that I am a member of in Washington, D.C., we have members of many nationalities and ethnicities, from all over the world. We have a number of interracial married couples in our congregation (I am friends with one of these couples-- the husband is my discipleship partner), and they are a testament to the Biblical reality that in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters. I also fancy a sister of another race in our church (haven't made my feelings known yet though-- still getting to know her), so who knows-- I may one day be in an interracial marriage myself, and it's a blessing to know that if I do marry a sister of another ethnicity, we will be welcomed as a couple at our church. I truly do hope and pray that God will lead you to a similarly loving body of Reformed believers.

 

[Turn'D-OuT-DiffurnT]

I do have some thoughts. JM, since you have already taken the step of marrying outside your race, I wish to be sensitive, because you no doubt have strong feelings about the issue, while at the same time noting that we do not appeal to mere feelings as the arbiter of truth or an objective standard for conduct, which hopefully anyone in the Reformed sub-forum would readily agree.

It appears that both you and SIW take it as a given that intermarriage is not only permissible, but desirable, as it is an expression of "...the Biblical reality that in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters."

For the sake of argument, first off...would that biblical reality necessarily be any less if intermarriage were prohibited? In other words, is it impossible for all races/nations to be (spiritual) brothers and sisters in Christ if they abstain from mixing, either voluntarily or not? You don't believe that intermarriage is mandatory, do you? What about disapproval of intermarriage? Some people do disapprove, and they feel that the scriptures commonly cited in favor are misinterpreted and/or wrenched out of context. Assuming that you'll never be brought around to their views, what is to be done with those people? Is dissent on the issue to be allowed? I guess that's my main question. Since the overwhelming most Christians throughout history have taken a strong stance against intermarriage, and the current widespread acceptance has only come about in roughly the last 35-40 years, what do you say about all those people in the past and the ones who even now reject it, and at least believe that they do so for equally biblical reasons as those who believe they support it for biblical reasons? Just curious.

 

[JJB]

I think Anthony Carter has a book called Black and Reformed. Might be a good read for you and your wife, JM

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/102-8762562-8040164?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26dispatch%3Dsearch%26results-process%3Dbin&field-keywords=anthony+carter&Go.x=9&Go.y=16

and his blog:

http://cyreneministries1.blogspot.com/

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

I do have some thoughts. JM, since you have already taken the step of marrying outside your race, I wish to be sensitive, because you no doubt have strong feelings about the issue, while at the same time noting that we do not appeal to mere feelings as the arbiter of truth or an objective standard for conduct, which hopefully anyone in the Reformed sub-forum would readily agree.

It appears that both you and SIW take it as a given that intermarriage is not only permissible, but desirable, as it is an expression of "...the Biblical reality that in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters."

For the sake of argument, first off...would that biblical reality necessarily be any less if intermarriage were prohibited? In other words, is it impossible for all races/nations to be (spiritual) brothers and sisters in Christ if they abstain from mixing, either voluntarily or not? You don't believe that intermarriage is mandatory, do you? What about disapproval of intermarriage? Some people do disapprove, and they feel that the scriptures commonly cited in favor are misinterpreted and/or wrenched out of context. Assuming that you'll never be brought around to their views, what is to be done with those people? Is dissent on the issue to be allowed? I guess that's my main question. Since the overwhelming most Christians throughout history have taken a strong stance against intermarriage, and the current widespread acceptance has only come about in roughly the last 35-40 years, what do you say about all those people in the past and the ones who even now reject it, and at least believe that they do so for equally biblical reasons as those who believe they support it for biblical reasons? Just curious.

This question may be a little more difficult to consider when someone like me comes into play. I am the product of an interracial marriage. What, according to the naysayers, is to be done about me?

Furthermore, we aren't so racially pure as we might like to think. Take Puerto Ricans, for instance. Even a full-blooded Puerto Rican (I am only half) is an amalgam of European, Indian, and African blood.

I am not sure it makes much sense to be ingrafted into Christ's body, and then try to remain separated from the other members of the body. I do not believe it is necessary to try and marry someone of a different race, but I do not see what is wrong with it. Nor do I think it is wrong to marry someone of your own race, if possible. It's getting increasingly difficult for some of us.

 

[JM]

I do have some thoughts. JM, since you have already taken the step of marrying outside your race, I wish to be sensitive, because you no doubt have strong feelings about the issue, while at the same time noting that we do not appeal to mere feelings as the arbiter of truth or an objective standard for conduct, which hopefully anyone in the Reformed sub-forum would readily agree.

It appears that both you and SIW take it as a given that intermarriage is not only permissible, but desirable, as it is an expression of "...the Biblical reality that in Christ, we are all brothers and sisters."

For the sake of argument, first off...would that biblical reality necessarily be any less if intermarriage were prohibited? In other words, is it impossible for all races/nations to be (spiritual) brothers and sisters in Christ if they abstain from mixing, either voluntarily or not? You don't believe that intermarriage is mandatory, do you? What about disapproval of intermarriage? Some people do disapprove, and they feel that the scriptures commonly cited in favor are misinterpreted and/or wrenched out of context. Assuming that you'll never be brought around to their views, what is to be done with those people? Is dissent on the issue to be allowed? I guess that's my main question. Since the overwhelming most Christians throughout history have taken a strong stance against intermarriage, and the current widespread acceptance has only come about in roughly the last 35-40 years, what do you say about all those people in the past and the ones who even now reject it, and at least believe that they do so for equally biblical reasons as those who believe they support it for biblical reasons? Just curious.

You would have a hard time making your case based upon the present fulfillment (NT) of spiritual Israel, you'd have to return to type (OT), which denies what has been accomplished. Abraham's spiritual seed in the OT was the elect of Israel, Abraham's spiritual seed is now the elect of all nations. My arguement is based upon Scripture and not feelings, but I understand your point.

Follow me for a moment...

Since the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have taken a strong stance for antisemtism, and the current widespread acceptance of Jewish people in general has only come about in roughly the last 35-40 years, what do you say about all those people in the past and the ones who even now are antisemitic, and they believe that they are for equally biblical reasons as those who believe they support it for biblical reasons? Just curious.


What do you think? If you want more about the spiritual seed of Abraham I could pm you a few example from Scripture sometime tomorrow, just let me know.

JM

 

[Turn'D-OuT-DiffurnT]

This question may be a little more difficult to consider when someone like me comes into play. I am the product of an interracial marriage. What, according to the naysayers, is to be done about me?

Paleo, I do have my own beliefs regarding this issue, but I'm holding them in reserve for the time being, as if I were neutral, for various reasons. I don't intend to argue for or against here, just to ask questions and try to evaluate the validity of the answers generated. The only solution -from the naysayers POV- to finding mates for mixed-race people that I've heard or can think of is they should seek out someone as similar to themselves as possible, meaning another mixed person.

Furthermore, we aren't so racially pure as we might like to think. Take Puerto Ricans, for instance. Even a full-blooded Puerto Rican (I am only half) is an amalgam of European, Indian, and African blood.

That may be true for Puerto-Ricans and some other racial/ethnic groups, but it seems like a bit of an over-generalization. Obviously, some groups are significantly fuller-blooded than others, through longer periods of isolation, cultural taboos and stigma, etc. Intermarriage is still relatively uncommon among all groups, and it's my understanding that more or less, the mass of individuals within any particular race are fairly "undiluted".

I am not sure it makes much sense to be ingrafted into Christ's body, and then try to remain separated from the other members of the body. I do not believe it is necessary to try and marry someone of a different race, but I do not see what is wrong with it. Nor do I think it is wrong to marry someone of your own race, if possible. It's getting increasingly difficult for some of us.

I'm sympathetic to you personal plight. However, I don't think that those who oppose mixing would accept the characterization that they're advocating separation from other members of the body, but recognizing that the different members are, well, just that. You yourself said that there's nothing wrong with marrying within your race. Most do. So, I take it that you also would not view every such instance as an example of an active, conscious decision to remain separate from other members of the body. I mean, by your logic, even if everyone marries within their group, that doesn't equate to separation within Christ spiritually.

Interesting that you quote Dabney, who was definitely on the "naysayers" side. What do you make of that?

 

[PuritanLady]

I think it has more to do with the fact that she is feeling out of place and outnumbered, so to speak, than it has to do with anyone's issues on their marriage.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Following rmwilliamsll lead, I thought I’d ask what the first impressions of the Reformed/Presbyterian Church was, from our brothers and sisters of colour? My wife is black and is having a hard time feeling comfortable as we move and fellowship more often with Reformed folks, she is always the only person of colour, and is having a hard time adjusting.

Any thoughts? We attended a few Dutch Reformed Churches up here in Canada and both of us were made to feel welcomed, getting over the shoulder glances, and no one even spoke to us. Has anyone else experienced this? I understand this isn't a "Reformed" Church problem, but that's where my wife and I are headed, just thought I'd ask.

Peace,
j

JM,

I have been in culture and places where I was the only member of my "race" around, it can be an uncomfortable situation. I found that just because people give you a double look does not necessarily mean disapproval.

We all tend to do this when we encounter something outside our norm. I would encourage you and your wife to find a solid Reformed Church and get to know the people. Be friendly and introduce yourselves, give folks a little time to get to know you. If they do proof to be racially biased against you two because of your marriage, they will have to answer to God. You can then try another church.

I hope familiarity will but any discomfort y'all or they may have to rest soon enough.

I pray that the Lord graft y'all into a solid, loving Reformed Church soon.

In Christ,
Kenith

By the way: One would have to be pretty ignorant of history and the movements of tribes and peoples around the globe to believe that there is any such thing as a "pure" race. We are all descended from Noah. We are all of his race, the human race.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

That may be true for Puerto-Ricans and some other racial/ethnic groups, but it seems like a bit of an over-generalization. Obviously, some groups are significantly fuller-blooded than others, through longer periods of isolation, cultural taboos and stigma, etc. Intermarriage is still relatively uncommon among all groups, and it's my understanding that more or less, the mass of individuals within any particular race are fairly "undiluted".

This is true, some are more than others. But I don't think it is an over-generalization. I don't think it's very easy to find a very "undiluted" race, but that depends even on what you consider "race" to mean. Kenith has a good point, and besides, even today many of us do not agree on what a race is (e.g., is white a race?).

I'm sympathetic to you personal plight.

I don't know how you can be; I haven't revealed anything about my "personal plight." Didn't know I had one. (My comment on difficulty does not mean that I am looking for such a person to marry).

However, I don't think that those who oppose mixing would accept the characterization that they're advocating separation from other members of the body, but recognizing that the different members are, well, just that. You yourself said that there's nothing wrong with marrying within your race. Most do. So, I take it that you also would not view every such instance as an example of an active, conscious decision to remain separate from other members of the body. I mean, by your logic, even if everyone marries within their group, that doesn't equate to separation within Christ spiritually.

Not exactly. In fact, I wouldn't connect the two (marrying within one's race and a conscious decision to remain separate).

Interesting that you quote Dabney, who was definitely on the "naysayers" side. What do you make of that?

Not much. I don't agree with everything said by, say, Calvin or Spurgeon, but I'll still quote them. And give a hearty "Amen" where we agree.

 

[lmnop9876]

in nearly every church we go to (reformed churches), my mother (or one of her kids) gets "what nationality are you (or your mum)?"
or "so, are you from one of the islands?" or "are you polynesian?" or "what country are you guys from?" or something to that effect. i mean, we're not black or anything, we have dark skin because we're of Australian Aboriginal descent, but i find it weird that it's the first thing people notice about us.

 

[Turn'D-OuT-DiffurnT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]

You would have a hard time making your case based upon the present fulfillment (NT) of spiritual Israel, you'd have to return to type (OT), which denies what has been accomplished.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]As I said to Paleo, I don't want you to get the wrong idea, namely that I'm arguing a particular position in this thread, even if I play devil's advocate from time to time. That being said, it would be extremely rare for a person in your position to be able to give fair and open-minded consideration to arguments opposing what you've chosen to do, which is largely why I did not present any such arguments in my first post (as you may have noticed), but instead posed the other questions. No one has really tackled them yet. But, I am genuinely curious and would like an answer, so I'll re-state them for anyone who'd like to try: [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]What approach would you take towards fellow believers who disapprove and oppose intermarriage? Is such opposition sinful? Are they to be somehow disciplined or judged outside the faith, worthy of ex-communication? If yes, then should all our ancestors of the same persuasion be retroactively excommunicated?[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]The reason I ask is because, believe it or not, I've seen numerous instances of people (Reformed Christians) making those exact sort of harsh claims, sowhenever the subject arises, I like to gather opinions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]Re: spiritual Israel, I'm not sure I follow you. How does a denial of the validity of intermarriage negate this concept, or deny anything that Christ has accomplished, foremost being the reconciliation of God and man through the sacrifice of the Atonement? You're not suggesting that one requires or necessarily follows the other, are you?[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]

Abraham's spiritual seed in the OT was the elect of Israel, Abraham's spiritual seed is now the elect of all nations. My arguement is based upon Scripture and not feelings, but I understand your point.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]Good, I also understand what you said there. And I agree, but don't see how it justifies intermarriage. I hope I'm not being obtuse. As I understand it, the word nation as used in Scripture is a synonym for race, which is how you also used it above and is much more simple and earthy than the most common understanding of the word "nation" in the West today, which is a large group of people of many different races who reside within the same particular geographical region defined by lines on a map, who achieve national citizenship either on the basis of merely being born and/or assenting to a certain set of political propositions and all ruled by one central gov't. [/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]It would seem the Bible takes the continued existence of the various nation/races for granted, even all the way up to the last chapter of Revelation. But, if everyone intermarried, after a certain amount of time then there would no longer be any distinct races or "nations" as we commonly see now and the biblical sense of the word would be totally vitiated, would it not? So then, doesn't the argument in favor of allowing intermarriage really boil down to a denial and argument against nations using race as a citizenship requirement?

Follow me for a moment...

Since the overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have taken a strong stance for antisemtism, and the current widespread acceptance of Jewish people in general has only come about in roughly the last 35-40 years, what do you say about all those people in the past and the ones who even now are antisemitic, and they believe that they are for equally biblical reasons as those who believe they support it for biblical reasons? Just curious.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif]I follow you, but I prefer and encourage others to rely more on exegesis of Scripture, hard fact and experience while steering clear of words like anti-semitism and racism, which are usually left undefined, or ill-defined. It seems to me they're buzzwords that rarely serve any purpose but to muddy the waters and cause panic and fear of being accused of them. That being said, I think a couple things should be noted. You're making the very large assumption that all "anti-semitism" was irrational and unjustified by any behavior of the Jews living among Gentile Christian peoples. I will say that I'm sure not all anti-Jewish prejudice or persecution was justified, but neither am I willing to go so far as to say none of it ever had any basis, nor that the current acceptance you mention is based on much else besides a largely uninformed, uneducated public which has been steeped in messages of "tolerance" of practically everything and other PC propaganda for decades. And, again, the fear of being labeled an anti-semite. It's really not a good analogy for interracial marriage, which would have never come about if certain things like slavery etc. had not brought foreigners into Western nations in the first instance, and had they not later been granted citizenship and political rights. The point being, how did this acceptance come to be? It was never really debated in any Church councils or within denominations, that I'm aware of. It simply came about gradually as a result of civil rights activists -which were not led by conservative evangelicals- whom the churches just kind of quietly took their cue from, when they gave any thought to it at all. How and when did the Church suddenly come to the realization, "Wow, we've been a bunch of backward, prejudiced xenophobes for the last 2,000 years, but now we're interpreting Scripture right!"? [/FONT]

 

[rmwilliamsll]

in nearly every church we go to (reformed churches), my mother (or one of her kids) gets "what nationality are you (or your mum)?"
or "so, are you from one of the islands?" or "are you polynesian?" or "what country are you guys from?" or something to that effect. i mean, we're not black or anything, we have dark skin because we're of Australian Aboriginal descent, but i find it weird that it's the first thing people notice about us.

when my kids were young, we tried to teach them the children's confession. one of the questions was if you could see God, and the basic answer was not with these eyes, but with spiritual eyes, which we have to be given by God and then learn to use properly.

i remember the kids running around that day, pretending to use spiritual eyes, then physical eyes, then finally giving up when their spiritual eyes just didn't pop open on the top of their heads.

that is the problem here, our physical eyes can't see inside people and we haven't trained our spiritual eyes to ignore the first thing we see when we meet someone.
it's a problem with these physical eyes.....
just like my kids playing hide and seek.
...

 

[JM]

By the way: One would have to be pretty ignorant of history and the movements of tribes and peoples around the globe to believe that there is any such thing as a "pure" race. We are all descended from Noah. We are all of his race, the human race.

This was very helpful, thank you.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello Turn'D-OuT-DiffurnT,
I found your post to JM very interesting. I hope y’all don’t mind if I join in and comment now and then.
As to your question about disciplining those who oppose or frown on interracial marriages, I don’t see grounds for that. We all think things that are more or less approved on many items that are not heretical or worthy of discipline. I see this subject as one of those items. But thinking and practice are different matters. If a person deals with an interracially married couple in an ungodly manner, then they may be subject to discipline.

I was born into, and still remember, a racially segregated South. I was as a young man very disturbed by interracial relationships, but not all interracial relationships, manly just those between peoples of sub-Saharan African roots and those of European roots. I have, as I have studied the Scriptures (and history) come to very different beliefs.

The Old Covenant Scriptures, that gave probations about intermarriage have far more to do with religion than race. Notice that Rahab, a Canaanite (a taboo group for marriage), married into the line of the Messiah and is one of Jesus’ ancestors. The same is true of Ruth, a Moabite. In both cases these women accept the faith of Israel and were rgrafted into the covenant people of God.

Don’t forget that Moses married an Ethiopian woman (a Cushite) and God reproved Aaron and Miriam for their disapproval of the marriage.

It is important to remember that Rahab and Moses' wife were both descended from Ham and were not descended from Shem, as was Moses and the Israelites were. Interracial marriages were clearly allowed to God’s Covenant people in the Old Covenant, it was marriage to those who had false God’s that was forbidden. If the foreign person converted to the true faith, then it was ok.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[JM]

The Old Covenant Scriptures that gave probations about intermarriage have far more to do with religion than race. Notice that Rahab, a Canaanite (a taboo group for marriage), married into the line of the Messiah and is one of Jesus’ ancestors. The same is true of Ruth, a Moabite. In both cases these women accept the faith of Israel and argrafted into the covenant people of God.

Don’t forget that Moses married an Ethiopian woman (a Cushite) and God reproved Aaron and Miriam for their disapproval of the marriage.

It is important to remember that Rahab and Moses wife were both descended from Ham and were not descended Shem as was Moses and the Israelites were. Interracial marriages were clearly allowed to God’s Covenant people in the Old Covenant, it was marriage to those who had false God’s that was forbidden. If the foreign person converted to the true faith, then it was ok.

That is kind of my point. In the OT, the nation of Israel was where God's elect were called from so race may have been a factor, but in the NT God's elect are called from the nations.

 

[arunma]

Following rmwilliamsll lead, I thought I’d ask what the first impressions of the Reformed/Presbyterian Church was, from our brothers and sisters of colour? My wife is black and is having a hard time feeling comfortable as we move and fellowship more often with Reformed folks, she is always the only person of colour, and is having a hard time adjusting.

Any thoughts? We attended a few Dutch Reformed Churches up here in Canada and both of us were made to feel welcomed, getting over the shoulder glances, and no one even spoke to us. Has anyone else experienced this? I understand this isn't a "Reformed" Church problem, but that's where my wife and I are headed, just thought I'd ask.

Well I don't have any specific suggestions, but if this serves as any encouragment, my church is Reformed Baptist, and we are quite multicultural. In fact, we specifically strive to integrate as many ethnic groups into our church as possible. I, as a racial minority (Eastern Indian) have felt quite comfortable here. So there certainly are ethnically diverse Reformed churches out there.

For the sake of argument, first off...would that biblical reality necessarily be any less if intermarriage were prohibited? In other words, is it impossible for all races/nations to be (spiritual) brothers and sisters in Christ if they abstain from mixing, either voluntarily or not? You don't believe that intermarriage is mandatory, do you? What about disapproval of intermarriage? Some people do disapprove, and they feel that the scriptures commonly cited in favor are misinterpreted and/or wrenched out of context. Assuming that you'll never be brought around to their views, what is to be done with those people?

I have honestly never understood the Biblical argument against interracial marriage. In fact, it seems plainly obvious to me that the Scriptures make no such prohibition, neither in the Old nor New Testaments. Such a person who believed these things would have to explain such things as the "mixed" marriages of Moses and Ruth, as well as the many New Testament commands that Jew and Gentile be integrated into one body of Christ (keeping in mind that the one Apostolic commandment against mixed marriages refers specifically to marriage between believers and unbelievers).

Of course, that wasn't your question. I understand that you are asking what ought to be done with Christians who believe that interracial marriage is not in accordance with Scripture. I know that you didn't specifically ask me, but I hope you do not mind my providing a response as well.

Christians who oppose interracial marriage do not properly understand the doctrine of justification by faith. I would suggest that such a person read Galatians 2:11-16, and ask himself "do I also draw away from different people for fear of the 'circumcision party?'" I would suggest that we deal with these Christians by being motivated by love to challenge their beliefs, and by forcing them to reconcile these doctrines with Scripture.

Let us make no mistake: opposition to interracial marriage is racism. Let us not call it a "different persuasion," or a "genuine, Biblical conviction," or any other name which paints this doctrine as anything but unbiblical. For all the talk of racial segregation being God's law, I have yet to see a Biblical justification of this belief which does not utilize eisegesis of such passages as Deuteronomy 23:2, cultural biases, and sometimes even the heresy of evolutionary biology.

Are we to revile Christians who believe this way? No, we are not to revile anyone. At the same time, by no means should this be considered a disputable matter. I believe that we should respond to these people by continuing to preach the Gospel of justification by faith to them. I do not believe that a person who believes in any racial separation within the church is truly displaying love towards his brother. We cannot be "separate but equal," because this strategy has already proven itself a failure. In short, a person who opposes interracial marriage within the church is not living in step with the Gospel.

 

[arunma]

That is kind of my point. In the OT, the nation of Israel was where God's elect were called from so race may have been a factor, but in the NT God's elect are called from the nations.

Actually, even this is not true, because Gentiles were always permitted to become a part of God's Israel, and to be partakers of the Covenant. It doesn't seem to me that race was ever a factor in God's covenants of grace.

 

[JM]

Actually, even this is not true, because Gentiles were always permitted to become a part of God's Israel, and to be partakers of the Covenant. It doesn't seem to me that race was ever a factor in God's covenants of grace.

[I made a post and then removed it.]

 

[arunma]

Something else has come to my mind about this issue.

If anyone thinks that God does not desire interracial marriage, then I wonder why his servant Paul appointed Timothy as the presbyter of the church in Ephesus. He said of the young pastor:

I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. (2 Timothy 1:5)
​

But here is what makes this interesting. It says:

Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3)
​

It seems quite clear to me that unlike the Jews who lived in this region, God did not want his chosen people to practice racial bigotry. Here is a man who was well versed in the Holy Scriptures, and who was of strong standing in God's church, and the Jews reviled him because of his supposedly tainted blood. Yet God chose him to serve at the church of the Ephesians.

Do Christians today practice the same sin as these Jews? Unfortunately, it seems that even in the modern church, we still do this. Do we believe that God wishes for his people to separate according to race? Apparently God does not agree with this false human wisdom, because although he could have picked from a wide variety of "pure" individuals, he chose Timothy the half-breed to lead the Ephesian church. And this pastor must have done great work for God, because of all the churches to whom the book of Revelation was addressed, Ephesus received the highest praises from Christ.

Let us never say that interracial marriage is not blessed by God. To do so is to contradict the word of God.