Christian Ethics and Interracial Marriage, Part 5: Miscegenation, Sodomy, and the Coherence of Nature-Hating Egalitarianism

 

Part 1: Preliminary Definitions
Part 2: God’s Law and Design
Part 3: Important Distinctions
Part 4: God’s Social Design of Mankind

 

Introduction

In considering the question of whether miscegenation is intrinsically sinful (against the anti-kinists who deny its sinfulness altogether, and the weak kinists who affirm it merely consequentially¹), I have made the argument that God’s design of human nature serves as the ratio essendi to outlaw both miscegenation and sodomy. It is part of our design not to miscegenate, just as it is part of our design not to commit sodomy. The evidence afforded for this claim is the witness of conscience in response to the acts, showing how such acts are indeed “against nature” (cf. Rom. 1:26) in their violations of the divine design. All attempts to suppress this testimony of conscience—whether by deriding conscience in general, or by denying that conscience could communicate the social and racial aspects of our existence in particular—meet failure. But in addition to the testimony of conscience, I would like to buttress my claim about the relation between miscegenation and sodomy by appealing to the historical trajectory of egalitarianism in the last half-century or so. We will see that the link between the racial egalitarians’ permission of miscegenation and the gender egalitarians’ permission of sodomy is more than historical happenstance; their agreement exists only because of the abiding and coherent conceptual affinity they have with each other. That is to say: the grounds upon which egalitarians promote both actions are the same grounds upon which Christians ought to oppose them.

The Wrong Side of History

Proponents of sodomite “marriage” are the inevitable offspring of a wicked egalitarianism which has been implemented with such success in the formerly Christian West that these perversion-lovers even have their own sense of tradition to which they can make appeal—a tradition that, in practice, casts a decisive veto against the earlier-established Christian tradition, which has sought to uphold biblical morality. By appealing to the alleged evils of racism and discrimination that fostered the anti-miscegenation viewpoints of Americans past, these egalitarians see themselves as untangling and undoing the pernicious effects of the Christian-theistic ethics which had molded the nation’s conscience and consciousness. Thus, these egalitarians are the continuers of a righteous revolution, and the Christians today opposed to sodomy are on “the wrong side of history.” History is making its inevitable inroads towards full-blown egalitarianism, and Christians who oppose total marriage equality will be left in the dust.

It is not difficult to see this connection in the arguments employed by leftists for modern marriage equality. One writer mocks the argument that sodomy is “contrary to nature” by saying that interracial marriage is too.² Another makes an explicit comparison to miscegenation in order to cast sodomy as sexual discrimination,³ and many other examples can be found.⁴ Some professing conservatives will decry this analogy⁵ and insist that the sodomy-endorsers are hijacking the noble and virtuous stands of Martin Luther King, but they are simply wrong. Both strains of this virus are constitutive of an allied assault upon nature and its norms as God has created it.

God-Ordained Normativity

The binding tie of egalitarianism as it has been expressed in favor of sodomite “marriages” today is rather easy to articulate: opposition to miscegenation is racial discrimination, so opposition to sodomy is gender discrimination. If some Christian bigot wishes to say that one person cannot marry another person solely due to his race, he is therefore discriminating on the basis of race. Likewise, if some Christian bigot wishes to say that one person cannot marry another person solely due to his gender, he is therefore discriminating on the basis of gender. (Contrast this with the knee-jerk irrelevance of “anti-racist” Christians who say that being gay is sinful but being black is not.) More rhetorical advocates claim that such discrimination would be on the superficial basis of “skin color” or “genitalia,” thus evidencing sinful prejudice.

But at root, in opposing discrimination on the basis of race or gender, what these egalitarians oppose is the idea that God could possibly connect any moral obligations to such elements of His creation. They grant that there are certain moral obligations regarding theft, lying, murder, cruelty, and other sins, but they do not grant that there could be contingent distinctions which God has made and to which He sovereignly assigns moral obligations. They just assume, for example, that if two men “love” each other, then they can lie with each other. But they should consider: what if God has so designed mankind that, as a matter of fact, it is intrinsically wrong for a man to lie with another man—even if they have potent, romantic affections for each other, even if they will be faithful to each other, and even if they are not (in other ways) disgusting perverts? That is not even a question up for consideration to the egalitarians. To them, God would not and God could not design certain elements of His creation to have attendant moral obligations, since we would then be able to righteously discriminate on their basis. In the darkness of their minds, the Almighty could not imbue normativity into the distinctions He has created, since…well…that would not be equal. The egalitarians thus have this anti-theistic and supremely irrational presupposition with which they answer moral questions pertaining to discrimination; they presuppose it impossible that God could design mankind in such a way that moral obligations are attendant to the distinctions He has created. They anathematize God-ordained normativity.

Consider how this works for race. By saying that it must be wrong to restrict marriage solely on the basis of race—or, further, by saying that it must be wrong to use race as a deciding factor for any decision whatsoever—egalitarians are implying the utter impossibility that God could have designed moral obligations within the natural distinctions of race. Their premise, that God could not associate moral obligations with any contingent distinctions of the created order, then also permits sodomy, for the restriction on sodomy is an inescapably lucid instance of gender discrimination: “you can have relations with someone of this gender, but not that one.” Their premise is the immorality of acting (choosing, discriminating) upon the basis of these contingent natural distinctions; the conclusion permits not only miscegenation but even the grave evil of sodomy.

As stated above, this presupposition is supremely irrational. It is clearly possible that God, if He wanted, could have designed His created order in such a way that moral obligations attend natural distinctions like race and gender. In fact, if it is even possible that God exists, then it is possible that moral obligations could attend race and gender, in which case even agnostic liberals cannot responsibly dismiss the positions of anti-miscegenation and anti-sodomy.⁶ All they can do is unlawfully presuppose their absurd moral presupposition, or else admit that they do not know whether interracial marriage and homosexuality are sinful. But as it is—as they boldly and presumptuously hold their fanciful moral premise—the conclusion is clearly set forth: the coherence of egalitarianism is rooted in its denial that there could possibly be some element of human nature which is by God’s design normative. They hold that it cannot be the case that God or His design has any say on sexual ethics; theirs is a principled disregard for the natural order of things. They say that race as race cannot be a reason to restrict marriage; likewise, gender as gender cannot be a reason either.

The Christian Response

The historic and commanding Christian response to this egalitarian delusion is to plainly deny the initial premise and affirm that normativity accompanies the Lord’s created distinctions. God has not created the important distinctions of race and gender to be nothing more than vessels of statistically helpful generalities, but has also created them as part of His design of human nature, such that acting in accord with their dictates leads towards human flourishing and brings glory to God. Gender and race are not merely helpful bundles of statistics, but have norms associated with themselves as such. If there is anything normative about gender at all, it is that male is not to be paired with male or female with female. And if there is anything normative about race at all, it is that we ought not to destroy what God has created and distinguished. Therefore, if there is any normativity to gender and to race as such, any normativity at all, then it immediately follows that both sodomy and miscegenation are intrinsically wrong.⁷ This position is the potent, robust, and coherent response to the equally coherent but nature-hating disease of egalitarianism; and it is better known as strong kinism.⁸

Christians unwilling to accept strong kinism must fidget around a great degree in responding to this systematic menace. Some, like R.C. Sproul, Jr., will glibly say that the bad guys’ believing X does not strictly entail that X is wrong, rationalizing away their clear obligation to investigate the matter and ponder its vital role in modern unbelief. Others, admitting the coherent conceptual union of egalitarianism, have to find a way to deal with the incontrovertible fact that anti-sodomy is gender discrimination. The only consistent position for this kind of Christian to take is to say that racial discrimination is wrong but not gender discrimination. He might say that it is possible for God to annex moral obligations to the created distinctions of race and gender, but as He has actually constituted us, there are only moral obligations attendant to gender.⁹ Yet, a problem with this is that God clearly permits discrimination upon the basis of race: consider how He intended Israel to be “reckoned by genealogies” (1 Chron. 9:1), or how St. Paul expressed a desire for his national kinsmen in particular to be saved (Rom. 9:3).¹⁰ Given these scriptural facts, the Christian opponent of strong kinism would be forced to say that racial discrimination of certain kinds is permissible, as is gender discrimination, but a particular type of racial discrimination—the kind which prohibits interracial marriage as immoral—is off-limits.

It should be clear that while a Christian might be able to hold such a position with broad logical consistency (i.e. without internal contradictions), he still must hold it with great instability when confronted by God’s created distinctions. It is not at all a stable or coherent position to hold that gender discrimination and racial discrimination are broadly permissible, but that the particular form of racial discrimination which outlaws miscegenation is wrong—especially given the above consideration that if anything is normative about race as such, it must be that it is sinful to destroy racial distinctions through amalgamation.

The instability of such a position would especially be made manifest when we consider how this kind of Christian would respond to the historic arguments used to permit interracial marriage. The arguments employed in the past all have the nature-hating seed of atheism built in, implying that God is unable to imbue any of His created distinctions with inherent normativity. Thus, the Christian who is not (quite) a strong kinist would have to say that all such egalitarian arguments are awfully wrong and blasphemous, but then say that anti-miscegenation is still a sinful form of racial discrimination, since he does not see any Bible verse prohibiting interracial marriage.¹¹ Would any Christian seriously be willing to hold this position? “It’s okay to discriminate on the basis of gender and race, but forbidding the destruction of racial distinctions is just plain wicked!” It is far more reasonable to accept strong kinism with all its explanatory coherence and competence. If we understand morality to be based on God’s ordained natural and moral order, we will desire thus to honor His distinctions.

Conclusion

Though Christ-haters allege that opponents of sodomy are on the wrong side of history, the truth is that they are on the wrong side of a fast-accelerating moral plunge. They have held, in brash defiance against the Almighty, that there are not and cannot be moral obligations attendant to the distinctions He has created, rationalizing for themselves the license to disrupt the natural and moral order He has ordained. If gender has any normativity as such, an obvious norm is that males pair with females, and if race has any normativity as such, an obvious norm is that we ought not to destroy the distinction itself. This position of strong kinism is the coherent and compelling opponent of egalitarianism; anything less concedes too much. It might be broadly logically possible to say that miscegenation is permissible but not sodomy, yet such a position is grossly unstable given our confrontation with God’s created order. We ought to see race as a distinction worth preserving and therefore affirm strong kinism.

 

Part 6: Essentialism and Constructivism

Tweet