Interracial Marriage: Permitted by Scripture, Complicated by Reality

Preface

This week, the internet erupted over my comments on interracial marriage. The conversation itself was not new. It began with a post by my friend Joel Webbon, whose position was more direct than mine, yet his post passed with comparatively little notice. The question is why.

The answer is simple. My remarks were more measured—and they came from a man who is himself in an interracial marriage. That combination made the argument harder to dismiss and therefore more threatening to those unwilling to entertain its conclusion. As a result, my post drew disproportionate attention. Yet very little of that attention addressed the substance of what I actually said. Instead, much of the response defaulted to mockery or deliberate misrepresentation. Accepting my claim—that shared race and culture often make marriage easier, more natural, and more harmonious, or what I called more “ideal”—would require acknowledging distinctions our multicultural and egalitarian framework reflexively labels as racist. And since that conclusion is off-limits, the argument itself had to be avoided.

In this article, I will clarify what I actually argued, expose the ideological assumptions driving the backlash, and make a biblical, historical, and natural-law case for why race and culture are real features of God’s providence that meaningfully shape marriage and family life. My aim is not to condemn interracial marriage, but to recover the Christian ability to speak truthfully about prudence, difference, and difficulty without moral panic or ideological distortion.

Denying Race While Weaponizing It

Some have suggested that I should have used the term “intercultural marriage” rather than “interracial marriage.” I disagree, because that suggestion often rests on a prior claim I reject—namely, that race is merely a social construct and that there is only one race: the human race. While it is true that all men share common humanity and equal dignity before God, the denial of race as a real, embodied distinction is neither historic nor credible. It is a modern ideological assertion, not a conclusion drawn from Scripture, history, or nature.

Furthermore, the same voices that insist race is a social construct routinely build their moral identity around opposing “racism.” This exposes that their moral crusade relies entirely on the reality they deny. That is, if race does not exist, then why does racism exist? Why are ideas like “white guilt” or accusations like “white nationalism” even intelligible? One cannot simultaneously deny the reality of race and then weaponize racial categories when it becomes rhetorically convenient.

Samuel Sey exemplifies this contradiction clearly. In one sentence of his article responding to Joel, he writes, “It’s not just bad science to believe in multiple human races; it’s bad theology. We are all one race in Adam.” Yet the very next day, he turns around and says to me: “Imagine saying that your wife isn’t the ideal wife—and therefore your children aren’t the ideal children—because of your ‘interracial’ marriage. All because you would rather show loyalty to your ‘white nationalist’ friends and audience than your own family.”

This is not merely careless rhetoric; it is incoherent. On the one hand, Samuel demands us to deny the relevance of skin color—or even existence—of race altogether. On the other hand, he invokes “white nationalism” as a moral accusation, explicitly appealing to racial categories to suggest guilt, motive, and malice. He cannot have it both ways. Either race is a manmade fiction, in which case “white nationalism” is an empty slur and should be thrown out by Christians, or race has real providential, social, and embodied meaning and should be used in meaningful ways. Ultimately, to deny race while simultaneously accusing others of racial sin is foolish. 

I recently saw two doctoral dissertations on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary website also argue that race does not exist but is merely a social construct. Yet the same institution offers degrees explicitly structured around racial categories. For example, Southern Seminary advertises a Doctor of Ministry in Black Church Leadership, which its website describes as “designed primarily to equip ministers to serve African American and other racial minorities.” I understand that students are separate from the institution but the impulse of this general crowd to deny the reality of race while simultaneously profiting from it or weaponizing it against others is incoherent. These double standards from places like Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition, are driven more by virtue signaling rather than truth and history, and they need to stop.

Race, Providence, and Embodied Difference

Some will argue that while God created two sexes, He created only one race—the human race. In one sense, that is true. Scripture is explicit that all humanity shares a common origin and dignity, descending from one man and one woman. Yet this unity does not negate the reality of embodied and historical distinction. Genesis 9–11 shows that, through divine providence rather than accident, humanity was ordered into families, nations, and peoples after the flood. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 presents the emergence of distinct peoples according to lands, languages, and lineages, while Genesis 11 records the division of humanity at Babel—not as a curse on difference itself, but as God’s sovereign ordering of human society according to His will. These developments are not merely sociological; they are theological, revealing that plurality among peoples is part of God’s design for human history.

So, race realism begins with this simple acknowledgment: God providentially moved humanity into visible, embodied distinctions that are neither accidental nor meaningless. Scripture affirms both the unity of mankind, “one kind of flesh” (1 Corinthians 15:39), and the real existence of nations, peoples, and boundaries established by divine providence (Acts 17:26). These distinctions are not merely cultural overlays imposed upon otherwise interchangeable bodies or biologies. They are visibly inscribed into humanity itself such as skin color, facial morphology, hair texture, skeletal structure, and other phenotypical characteristics that have historically functioned as markers of shared ancestry and correspond broadly to geography and climate. Generally, God gave darker pigmentation to those nearer the equator and lighter pigmentation to those farther away—patterns long recognized by anthropology and evolutionary biology as providential rather than arbitrary.

These visible distinctions function as providential markers of likeness, and humanity’s attraction to likeness is not an effect of sin or ideology, but a feature of God’s design. Likeness fosters recognition, trust, and social cohesion, which over time gives rise to shared customs, language, and culture. Scripture therefore never treats nations, peoples, or physical distinctions as illusions to be erased, but as meaningful realities to be ordered under God’s rule. Redemption in Christ does not abolish embodied difference; it sanctifies it, preserving unity without collapsing diversity.

No matter how much this generation attempts to erase distinctions in an effort to avoid the charge of “racism” or to appear tolerant and inclusive, the reality remains. Race is real. It is not a social construct of man but a providential construct of God.

Therefore, God designed human beings to recognize, prefer, and associate with what is familiar. It is true not only with man but also with mammals, fish, birds, and even insects. This is why, outside of our very modern America, nations throughout history have been populated almost entirely by people who share likeness—not only in culture, but also in visible traits. Even today, in societies that officially celebrate multiculturalism, voluntary self-segregation along racial lines persists in neighborhoods, friendships, churches, and marriages—demonstrating that race realism describes reality rather than prescribing exclusion.

This reality is evident even in America. We have black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, Chinatowns, Koreatowns, and places like Dearborn, Michigan filled with Arabs. Some of these communities are shaped by shared religion or national origin, but all of them are sustained by visible likeness—skin color, shared background, and the human preference for familiarity. This is why, throughout history, race and culture have been inseparable realities rather than independent variables. To speak of marriage as merely “intercultural” while denying the significance of race or visible likeness ignores the visible, embodied dimensions of human life as God has ordered it. 

Yes, race is not the whole of culture, but it is not irrelevant to it either. It is one of the providential markers by which God has ordered human societies toward coherence, continuity, and stability in a fallen world.

Science and sociology further support this observation. Studies in evolutionary psychology consistently show that humans exhibit in-group preference, trusting and bonding more readily with those who share visible and behavioral similarities. This is not moral corruption but a survival mechanism embedded in God’s creation. Theologically, this aligns with natural law: God governs human behavior not only through explicit commands but through the created order itself. Scripture never condemns preference for one’s own people; it condemns hatred, injustice, and partiality in judgment.

In Genesis, we see Abraham explicitly instruct his servant to secure a wife for Isaac from among his own people rather than from the surrounding nations (Genesis 24) and Isaac gives the same instruction to Jacob (Genesis 28:1–2). This preference is presented not as prejudice, but as wisdom aimed at preserving covenantal continuity, shared customs, and familial alignment. Likewise, the Apostle Paul speaks openly and unapologetically of his affection and preference for “my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:3), demonstrating that ethnic and familial loyalty are not erased by Christian faith but rightly ordered within it.

God’s work of redemption does not eliminate racial distinction; it redeems people within those distinctions. Scripture consistently portrays salvation as gathering real peoples—tribes, nations, and tongues—into Christ’s kingdom without collapsing them into sameness. Christianity therefore orders and sanctifies ethnic and national differences under Christ’s lordship, while modern liberal globalism seeks unity by flattening difference and erasing inheritance, a vision foreign to the biblical pattern.

Providence itself confirms that this diversity is not a defect but a good. Scripture anticipates a restored creation in which distinct nations worship God and bring their unique glories into His kingdom (Revelation 7:9; 21:24–26). We should want American Christians, Mexican Christians, and Korean Christians alike glorifying God in their distinction nations—not by abandoning their inherited identities, people, and lands but by offering them up, purified and ordered, to Christ. To flatten this providential mosaic of difference is not progress; it is impoverishment.

Now, I agree that differences in marriage are not created by skin color alone, but largely by cultural factors. However, many children from mixed-race households have spoken openly about experiencing identity confusion—unsure of where they belong or feeling only partially accepted by either group. These are not imaginary struggles; they are well-documented human experiences. Sociological and psychological studies published over the past two decades, including NIH-indexed research on multiracial identity development and data from the UK Millennium Cohort Study, consistently note increased identity tension, external labeling pressures, and challenges of belonging among mixed-race individuals compared to their monoracial peers.

In addition, many grandparents have quietly expressed difficulty forming the same sense of natural connection with grandchildren who do not resemble them physically. Few are willing to say this publicly, however, for fear of being accused of rejecting diversity or being labeled “racist.” Yet sociological research on kinship and attachment has long noted that perceived physical resemblance strengthens feelings of familiarity, continuity, and relational bonding across generations—making this a human reality, not a moral failure.

This is the type of issues I was speaking of when I stated that interracial marriages are not “ideal.” They often come with additional hurdles that can make marriage and family life more difficult. Those hurdles can be overcome by Christ—and often are—but pretending they do not exist is naïve. The reason many insist they do not exist is that any form of racial preference is now labeled “racist,” especially when expressed by white people. But grace and the gospel do not require the denial of reality.

In fact, just this Sunday, I spoke with a couple in our church who illustrated this point clearly. The husband shared that he knew from childhood that he would only marry a Latin woman, and together they expressed a desire for their children to marry within their Latin culture as well. He also described the experience of his white brother-in-law, who married into their family and has struggled to feel connected—particularly with extended family. Family gatherings are often conducted in Spanish with latin traditions, and over time this left him feeling excluded and disconnected, to the point that he eventually had to express his frustration directly. 

So, a Christian farm boy from Ohio and a Christian woman from Sudan may lawfully marry in Christ—and God may bless that union—but it does not follow that such a marriage is equally “ideal” or equally free from added difficulty as those Christians who married within their race and culture. That is, to deny that racial and cultural differences can affect how easy or difficult a marriage feels—how natural, harmonious, or “ideal” it may be—is simply foolish. And to respond with, “All you need is Christ,” while technically true, is ultimately a cheap answer. It sidesteps the real tensions and pains that can arise when unity must be actively forged across deep cultural and racial divides rather than largely inherited through shared history and likeness.

The Collapse of the Conversation

Fascinatingly, I received private and direct messages from hundreds of Christians in interracial marriages who agreed with my post. One man wrote, “I have no idea why so many people had visceral reactions to your comments on interracial marriage. My wife and I are Christians in an interracial marriage—I’m Asian, and she’s white—and we completely agree with you. Our marriage would have been much easier had we married within our own race and culture. Many of the conflicts we faced early on arose simply because our cultural expectations were different, and the same was true with our in-laws. We don’t believe our interracial marriage was ideal in that sense, but we love each other deeply.”

Ironically, the harshest criticism came not from interracial couples with lived experience, but from white, monoracial marriages unfamiliar with these difficulties. Over and over again they objected to my claim that such marriages are not always “ideal.” Why? Having been thoroughly conditioned to believe that any racial preference is inherently racist, my assertion—as a white man—that the circumstances of our marriage were not “ideal” triggered fear rather than reflection. That fear shut down any willingness to consider what is, in reality, a logical and honest point.

So rather than addressing the claim directly, critics twisted my words. My statement that interracial marriage is not the “ideal” was reframed as a personal attack on my wife, or as if I were suggesting that she or my marriage was unwanted. Even Seth Dillon, the founder of The Babylon Bee, responded with, “So your marriage is not ideal?” I replied:

“Are you asking whether my marriage is perfect? No. Are you asking whether there were real cultural differences my wife and I had to work through that I’d rather my children not have to face? Yes. So, in some ways it’s been ideal, in others it has not. We’re not so insecure that we have to pretend that everything in our marriage was “ideal.” It hasn’t always been ideal. However, we both love watching Christ overcome our differences (especially in our early marriage) and bring unity out of a unique situation. 16 years strong. So, Seth, stop looking at this through an egalitarian framework where everything must be the same in order to be good. Some marriages are more “ideal” than others. They are easier, more blessed, more aligned, more natural, and more harmonious, and wisdom has no trouble admitting that.”

Ruslan Karaoglanov likewise refused to engage the substance of my argument and instead responded with a rhetorical jab, asking, “So are your kids less than ideal?” I replied, “No, because the less than ‘ideal’ aspect was that my wife and I did not share the same culture, upbringing, and traditions. My children do share those with us.” 

Nevertheless, every marriage carries certain costs that can diminish how ideal the circumstances are. Perhaps you married a man whose parents are deceased, meaning your children will never know their grandparents. Perhaps you married a woman who already had a child with another man. We readily acknowledge that these are less-than-ideal circumstances—without implying anything negative about the worth of the spouse or the children. No wise person confuses circumstance with dignity.

Yet the moment this same reasoning is applied to interracial marriage, the discussion collapses. The substance is ignored, and my words are deliberately misread as an insult toward my family. That is not what I am doing. I am speaking about circumstances, not value—and pretending we cannot make that distinction is intellectually dishonest.

Others approached the criticism from a more “Christianized” angle, arguing that because we are all one race in Christ, any acknowledgment of skin color or cultural preference must be sinful partiality. But Scripture defines partiality as sinful only in matters of intrinsic worth, justice, and judgment—not in preference. The gospel does not require the elimination of preferences. If you prefer tall men, marry a tall man. If you prefer blonde women, marry a blonde woman. Preference is not prejudice.

It is entirely reasonable to say that an “ideal” marriage shares not only the same Christ, but also the same nationality, culture, upbringing, language, and history.

Yes, Christ can overcome areas where couples lack worldly alignment—and often does. But there is nothing wrong with singles desiring for themselves, or parents desiring for their children, the greatest degree of alignment possible in marriage.

To be clear, I do not believe interracial marriage is sinful. Scripture itself testifies to the legitimacy of such unions in cases like Ruth and Boaz (Ruth 1–4) and Moses and his wife Zipporah (Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1). Yet these examples function as exceptions within the biblical narrative, not as the ordinary pattern. At the same time, Scripture consistently presents marriage within one’s own people as the normative assumption. The presence of exceptional, God-blessed unions does not render monoracial marriage immoral or suspect. In fact, from Adam and Eve through 1960, monoracial marriages have constituted more than 95% of all marital unions. It is only in very recent history—under the influence of globalization, multiculturalism, and modern egalitarian ideology—that this longstanding norm has been questioned or treated as morally problematic.

What We Are No Longer Allowed to Remember

What makes this controversy even more revealing is how far our society has gone in denying the reality of race and culture in the name of modern egalitarianism. Prior to World War II, my position was widely assumed rather than debated. Even the Puritans, so often celebrated across Presbyterian, Reformed, and Anglican traditions, viewed interracial marriage as imprudent or even unlawful within their social context. The majority of the original thirteen colonies enacted laws against interracial marriage, and while such laws were gradually repealed over time, sixteen states still had them on the books when the Supreme Court struck them down in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. Whatever one thinks of those policies today, they reflect a near-universal pre-modern assumption: shared race and culture were understood to promote marital stability, familial continuity, national prudence, and social cohesion.

To be clear, I am not arguing for outlawing interracial marriage; it should not be illegal. But it should at least prompt Christians to ask why nearly every pre-modern theologian, magistrate, scientist, anthropologist, church, and society approached marriage this way. For many faithful Christian pastors and theologians, this perspective was rooted in covenant theology and their understanding of the Fifth Commandment. “Honor your father and your mother” was historically interpreted not merely as personal respect, but as covenantal loyalty to one’s household, lineage, and people. Marriage was seen as a generational act, not a purely private choice.

To honor one’s parents included honoring what they had stewarded across generations—faith, customs, land, and peoplehood. For a man whose family had lived within the same people for many generations, marrying within that heritage was viewed as part of honoring father and mother and contributing to the continuity and strength of the nation they had inherited and had covenanted. Modern individualism and multiculturalism has shattered this biblical understanding by redefining honor as personal autonomy rather than inherited stewardship.

In doing so, it severed marriage from ancestry, lineage, and obligation to those who came before, reducing the Fifth Commandment from generational faithfulness to private sentiment.

This understanding was not limited to colonial America. Across Christendom and beyond, marriage within one’s own people was widely regarded as normative. Medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas treated marriage among similar kindred as natural, drawing on classical accounts of friendship grounded in likeness. Following Aristotle, Aquinas affirmed that “likeness is the cause of love,” and that human friendship—and by extension marriage—arises most readily where there is shared nature, habit, and way of life. This same principle shaped Christian moral reasoning more broadly. John Calvin, commenting on Acts 17:26, emphasized that God sovereignly determines “the times and the bounds of their [nations] habitation,” underscoring that the distribution of peoples across the earth is neither accidental nor arbitrary, but governed by divine counsel. Martin Luther likewise appealed explicitly to natural law, stating, “It is a natural law that parents love their children, and that people love their own country and their own people,” treating such affection as part of the created order rather than a moral defect.

Globally, this pattern persists to this day. In much of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, monoracial marriage remains the norm—not because they hate other peoples, but because shared visible likeness, language, customs, and family structures reduce friction in marriage and preserve cultural continuity. America’s post-1960s “melting pot” model, shaped by the post war consensus’s pluralism and egalitarianism, is the historical exception, not the rule. It uniquely attempts to separate race from culture, treating visible difference as inconsequential. Scripture, however, never does this. 

Conclusion

So let me be clear in closing. My wife and I have openly acknowledged that our marriage has not always been “ideal” in every sense—and there is nothing unloving, demeaning, or dishonoring about admitting that reality. What I am arguing for is not novelty, but continuity. For most of the Church’s history, Christians understood that marriage flourishes most naturally where faith is shared and where the inherited structures of life—likeness, place, language, and customs—are already aligned. This was not treated as exclusionary or unloving, but as a sober recognition of how God ordinarily orders human flourishing in a fallen world.

Yes, Christ can and does overcome areas where couples lack worldly alignment. He certainly has in our marriage, and we give Him glory for that. But acknowledging grace does not require denying difficulty. Wisdom allows us to name real hurdles without questioning the worth of the people involved. Nor is there any moral fault in a man or woman seeking a marriage marked by the greatest harmony possible. The impulse toward alignment is not a betrayal of Christian love, but an expression of wisdom shaped by experience.

Finally, none of this argument rests on the claim that meaning, value, or dignity is tied to race. Scripture is unequivocal that all people are made in the image of God and equal in need of redemption. I am not speaking of a hierarchy of worth; but rather providential distinction of history, geography, and embodiment. They are real conditions God has ordered human life within, not something we are free to ignore without consequence. To acknowledge race as real is neither to absolutize it nor to idolize it—but neither is it to deny it. Different races face distinct challenges, and those realities must be addressed with both the gospel and Christian wisdom. Faithful Christianity does not pretend providential distinctions do not exist; it learns how to live rightly within them, ordering love, marriage, and family life according to the gospel rather than to ideological distortions.

So I maintain my position. Interracial marriage is not sinful, but it is not “ideal” in the ordinary sense. It can be glorious, but it will often be more complicated.