Foundational Matters: A Critical Response to Stone Choir Ep 15
“On Human Race: Foundational Matters”
Many have pointed out the deficiencies and demonic ideology of Stone Choir and how it does not measure up to Scripture but twists it. Yet, the followers of the podcast demand that people show its falsity point-by-point (the hosts then have a nasty habit of attacking those that do just this and still reject the podcast). This series will endeavor to do examine the crooked Stone Choir by laying it beside the straight Scripture.
This series does not intend to respond to every single episode of the Stone Choir. It is enough to examine some of the fruit to see how poisonous and dead the tree is.
A note: this is not a series that will dive into the personalities nor persons of Corey Mahler and Ryan Dumperth. Their X accounts speak for themselves on that. This series will deal with what the hosts say within the podcast comparing their ideology and what they say to the Scriptural witness.
The analysis follows a simple formula:
Summary of the Episode
Key Points Presented in the Episode
Biblical Refutations for Each Key Point
Conclusion
Without further introduction:
Episode Summary
In the Stone Choir podcast episode “On Human Race: Foundational Matters,” the hosts present their view of human racial differences. This episode (part one of a four-part series on race) focuses on what they consider the scientific and historical basis for understanding human races, with a promise to address more in the next installments. In summary, the hosts make several key assertions about race in this episode:
“One race, the human race” – Wrong? The hosts argue that it is naive and unbiblical to claim “there is only one human race.” They insist that while all humans descend from Adam and Noah, there are real, God-intended subdivisions among humans (what we commonly call races or ethnic groups). To deny those subdivisions, they say, “is to contradict Scripture.”
Scientific Data on Racial Differences: The hosts maintain that modern secular scientists (whom they label “atheist evolutionists” or “Marxists”) often suppress or spin data about race. Historically, they claim, scientists acknowledged factual differences among races, but in recent years many have allegedly altered or hidden data to push the idea that race isn’t real. In their view, race has real biological consequences – they cite differences in behavior, intelligence, and disease susceptibility among racial groups – and denying these realities is harmful (even “killing people,” as when doctors ignore race-based risk factors). For example, they note sickle-cell anemia as a genetic trait more common in people of African descent, implying that recognizing racial genetics is literally a life-and-death matter.
Biblical Origins of Race: According to the hosts, human racial groups originated from the dispersion of peoples after Noah’s Flood. They describe how Noah’s three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and their wives gave rise to “three major groupings” of humanity, which then split into many smaller people-groups. All present-day racial genetic variation, they argue, was pre-programmed by God into Adam and Eve from the beginning. In other words, God intended the development of different races as part of His plan for humans to “fill the earth.” They strongly reject any notion that racial diversity was merely a result of sin or a curse (for instance, they argue it’s “high-handed sin” to claim race resulted from God’s judgment at the Tower of Babel – they insist it was God’s plan, not an accident or punishment).
Interracial Marriage and “Mixed” Lineage: The hosts even extend their argument to marriage and morality. They claim that people of “mixed” racial ancestry tend to experience more health problems than those of “unmixed” heritage. Because of this, they suggest Christians should be cautious about interracial marriage. A person’s genetic inheritance is portrayed as a God-given gift to be preserved; choosing a spouse from a very different lineage is characterized as potentially “stealing from the next generation” by introducing health risks or losing unique genetic traits. They frame this as a moral consideration for Christians, implying that deliberately mixing distinct ancestries is a selfish decision with harmful consequences for one’s children.
In what follows, we will examine several of these key claims made in the podcast – quoting the hosts directly – and respond to each with a confessional Lutheran Scriptural refutation, coupled with relevant scientific insights. The purpose is to address these ideas grounded in Scripture and sound science.
Claim 1: The Bible Contradicts the Phrase “One Human Race”
Early in the episode, the hosts criticize Christians who say “there’s only one race, the human race.” They argue that Scripture itself teaches the existence of multiple distinct races or subdivisions within humanity. One host put it this way:
“We’re doing this episode specifically to try to get people over the hurdle of saying things like ‘one race, the human race.’ As though that precludes the possibility that there are subdivisions among humans. To say that that doesn’t exist is to contradict Scripture.” (00:04:32)
Biblical Response: It is certainly true that the Bible speaks of nations, tribes, and peoples – a diversity of human families arising from Noah’s descendants (Genesis 10). However, the overall teaching of Scripture is that all humans belong to one fundamental family by God’s design. Far from “contradicting Scripture,” the sentiment “one human race” actually echoes biblical truth in important ways:
Common Creation and Ancestry: “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). This verse explicitly affirms that all nations (and by extension, races) descend from one human ancestor. Likewise, Genesis teaches that all people come from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:20) and, after the Flood, from Noah’s family. We are, in essence, one blood and one human family.
All Made in God’s Image: The Bible does not single out certain ethnic groups as more in God’s image than others. “So God created man in His own image… male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Every human being, regardless of race or ethnicity, bears God’s image and has inherent dignity. This shared image-bearing unites us far more than any genetic or cultural differences may divide us.
No Partiality with God: Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that God does not show favoritism based on ethnic identity. “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34, cf. Romans 2:11). For example, in the New Testament, Cornelius (a Gentile) receives the Holy Spirit just as the Jewish believers did, prompting Peter to affirm God’s equal acceptance of those from “every nation” who fear Him (Acts 10:34-35). James likewise warns that if we “show partiality, [we] are committing sin” (James 2:9). Any ideology that ascribes lesser or greater human value to someone because of ancestry directly contradicts God’s impartial character.
Unity in Christ: The hosts set aside Galatians 3:28 for later discussion, but we cannot ignore its import: “There is neither Jew nor Greek... for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In context, this speaks to our standing in salvation – no ethnic group has an advantage or disadvantage in Christ. All are equally sinners and equally invited into God’s grace (Romans 3:22-23). The same principle appears in Colossians 3:11, “Here there is not Greek and Jew... barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” These verses do not claim that cultural or physical differences don’t exist; rather, they assert those differences do not affect the fundamental spiritual reality that we are one in God’s eyes. A Christian confessing “one human race” is acknowledging this very truth – that before our Creator and Redeemer, all humanity stands on equal footing.
It is worth clarifying the language: Sometimes the phrase “one human race” is used in Christian conversation as a shorthand for the biblical ideas above – that we’re all related, all equally valuable, and we should not be racist. It does not mean there are no different ethnic groups; it simply means none of those groups is a separate species, outside the human family, or that certain groups have inherit morality whiles others do not. When understood this way, “one human race” is not nonsense, but a heartfelt affirmation of human unity that aligns with Scripture’s teaching of common origin (Acts 17:26) and common redemption (Ephesians 2:14-16).
To be sure, the Bible also celebrates diversity. In Revelation 7:9, for instance, we see a vision of “a great multitude... from every nation, tribe, people, and language” worshiping Jesus together. Our different people groups are part of the richness of God’s creation. But nowhere does Scripture imply that recognizing our shared humanity “precludes” the existence of differences among us. Christians can joyfully say we are one human race in God’s image even as we appreciate the variety of tribes and nations. There is no biblical contradiction here.
In summary, Scripture supports both the unity and diversity of humanity, without elevating or denigrating any racial subset. We must also affirm that in God’s eyes all humans are kin. A confessional Lutheran perspective, grounded in Scripture, emphatically rejects the idea that God’s Word teaches a hierarchy of races or denies our fundamental unity. Rather, we hold that “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10). Yes, we have different families, nations, and cultures, but ultimately we are one human family – fallen in Adam, and by faith, united in Christ.
Claim 2: Race Determines Behavior, Intelligence, and Health Outcomes
The Stone Choir hosts go on to assert that biological race has significant effects on people’s traits – not just obvious physical attributes, but even behavior and intellect. They lament that modern society (and even scientists) “deny” this, which they believe is a dangerous lie. One host says:
“There are so many aspects of what it means to have a particular race that manifest in terms of behavior, in terms of intelligence, in terms of disease profile.” (00:48:47)
They argue that medical professionals have always known ancestry can affect health (using the example of sickle-cell anemia being more common in those of African descent), and they claim that recent moves to ignore race in medicine are harming people. By extension, the hosts suggest that differences in behavior or intelligence between races are real and rooted in the God-given genetic makeup of those groups. The implication is that denying the existence of innate racial differences in areas like intellect or temperament is both unscientific and unscriptural.
Biblical Response: We must approach this claim with great care and biblical clarity. Does Scripture teach that one’s ethnic lineage determines one’s behavior or mental capacity? No, it does not. God’s Word consistently attributes a person’s character and destiny not to their bloodline’s genetic qualities, but to spiritual and moral factors (such as faith, wisdom, and obedience to God). A few points to consider:
All Are Alike in Sin and in Need of Grace: The Bible levels the playing field for all people regarding moral standing. “We have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Romans 3:9). And again, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). No ethnic group is inherently more righteous or more depraved; each individual will answer to God for their own sins (Ezekiel 18:20). Likewise, no group has a monopoly on wisdom or folly. Scripture shows that wisdom comes from fearing the Lord (Proverbs 9:10), something available to anyone, and foolishness comes from sinful rejection of God – a trap any group can fall into. For example, the book of Proverbs and the epistles offer moral instruction that clearly applies to all peoples; nowhere do they suggest different standards or expected behaviors based on lineage. In short, the human heart is universally sinful (Jeremiah 17:9) and also universally redeemable. Apart from God’s grace, every culture and race shows fallen behavior (just read the history of Israel, or of the Gentile nations!). And under God’s grace, people of any nation can be transformed and bear the Spirit’s fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). Our behaviors and attitudes are shaped far more by our sin nature or our renewed nature in Christ than by any supposed genetic proclivity tied to race.
Judged by Righteousness, Not Ancestry: In Scripture, God evaluates people by their faith and conduct, not their ethnic origin. For instance, in Acts 10, Cornelius (a Roman centurion) is accepted because of his faith, and in Matthew 8:10-12 Jesus even says that many from east and west (other nations) will share in God’s kingdom, while some Israelites who lack faith will be cast out – a striking statement that heritage does not guarantee blessing or curse. “The LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). This principle, told to Samuel when choosing David, applies broadly: God is concerned with one’s heart and faith, not skin color or ancestry. Therefore, any theory that suggests one race is innately more virtuous or intelligent runs contrary to the biblical understanding of how God bestows gifts and judges character. In Christ, believers of all backgrounds are given various gifts by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11) – God’s grace, not bloodline, is the source of our abilities and wisdom. We are called to humility, recognizing that “What do you have that you did not receive [from God]?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Boasting in ethnic or genetic superiority is profoundly un-Christian (Jeremiah 9:23-24).
Confessional Witness: When discussing Original Sin in the Second Article of the Augsburg Apology the Lutheran confessors made the follow observation:
41 Thus, beyond all controversy, the Fathers believe. For Augustine, in a long discussion, refutes the opinion of those who thought that concupiscence in man is not a fault, but an adiaphoron, as color of the body or ill health is said to be an adiaphoron [as to have a black or a white body is neither good nor evil]. (AP II:41)
We can plainly see that the Lutheran Fathers did not equate ethnic heritage to have any bearing on a person’s moral character.
Scientific Response: From a scientific standpoint, the hosts are correct that certain genetic traits (particularly related to health) are more prevalent in some populations due to geographical ancestry. No reasonable person would deny, for example, that sickle-cell trait is more common in people whose ancestors lived in malaria-endemic regions (e.g. parts of Africa or the Mediterranean). Where the hosts’ argument becomes problematic is in the leap from acknowledging some health-related genetic variations to asserting broad differences in intelligence or behavior that are inborn and tied to race:
Human Genetic Unity: Genetically, all humans are incredibly similar. Researchers have found that approximately 99.9% of our DNA is identical across all humans (Race in a Genetic World | Harvard Magazine)! The differences that do exist are a tiny fraction of our genome. When we look at that tiny 0.1% variation, the vast majority of it (by classic findings, 85% or more) is variation within any given population, and only a small additional percentage distinguishes one population (or “race”) from another (Race in a Genetic World | Harvard Magazine). In other words, any two individuals from the same ethnic group can be almost as genetically different from each other as they might be from someone of a different race. This undermines the idea of clearly bounded biological races – human populations overlap genetically a great deal. There is no gene for “behavior” or “intelligence” that one race universally has and others lack; those traits are complex and influenced by many factors.
Intelligence and Environment: Differences in average IQ or other outcomes between racial groups (often observed in societal data) do not demonstrate genetic inferiority or superiority. The reasonable view of most experts is that such differences are largely due to environmental factors – such as quality of education, socioeconomic conditions, experiences of discrimination or privilege, nutrition, etc. – rather than innate ability. It’s important to note that the hosts’ claim that scientists are “denying race” is misleading; what many scientists (including geneticists and anthropologists) actually say is that “race” as popularly conceived is not a precise biological category. Instead, they study human genetic diversity in terms of populations or ancestry, which is far more nuanced. For example, a medical researcher will note a patient’s ancestry (because specific mutations might run in certain geographically or ethnically defined groups), but also knows there is no perfectly clean division — traits often blend gradually across regions.
Health and Medicine: On the medical point – it’s true that doctors must consider a patient’s background for certain conditions (like sickle-cell, Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews, lactase persistence in some Europeans, etc.). Good medicine, however, uses ancestry as one factor among many. It’s not about racial stereotyping; it’s about precise risk factors. For instance, sickle-cell anemia is indeed more common in people of African descent, but also occurs in those of South Asian or Mediterranean descent. It’s tied to ancestral regions with malaria, not “race” as a rigid category. No competent physician is “denying” that or “killing people” by ignoring it – on the contrary, these genetic insights are widely taught in medical schools. The danger would be if a doctor assumed only Africans can have sickle-cell and ignored a case in someone of another background, or conversely if they assumed all African-heritage patients have it (which would also be false). Medicine must be nuanced. Recognizing specific genetic risks is important; that’s very different from saying “race in general determines health.” The hosts conflate the responsible use of genetic ancestry in medicine with a supposed plot to “deny race.” The truth is, modern medicine aims to treat each patient individually, which includes genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors – and yes, genetic ancestry is considered wherever relevant. This is fully compatible with saying “we are all one human race” in the broader sense.
We can acknowledge our God-given differences (no two individuals, even within one family, are exactly alike, and similarly there are some statistical differences between large populations). But we also must be on guard against the sin of pride and partiality (James 2:1). Throughout history, the idea that one race is mentally or morally superior has fueled terrible injustice – slavery, oppression, genocide. Such attitudes are unequivocally condemned by the Gospel of Christ, which calls us to humility and to view others as better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3). A Lutheran Christian would also recall that our Lutheran Confessions reject anything that undermines the universality of sin and grace – for example, all people, whatever their ethnicity, are equally in need of the atonement of Christ (Romans 3:22-24), and His saving work is for all.
So, while the hosts of Stone Choir believe they are upholding “facts,” we must carefully distinguish observable facts from how they are interpreted. Yes, different groups have different histories and trait distributions – but every individual must be seen as an individual, fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:14), not as a stereotype of their race. We should never assume someone’s intelligence, behavior, or worth from their ethnicity. That kind of assumption is what Scripture would call respect of persons (partiality), and it is unjust. Rather, we affirm: every person we meet is a unique soul loved by God, capable of both great sin and great good, and in need of Christ. In Christ, God is forming a redeemed people “from every nation” who will reflect the beautiful tapestry of His creation (Revelation 5:9). There is no biblical warrant to rank that tapestry’s threads by color or to claim one pattern is inherently better on a human level.
From a scientific point of view, modern genetics actually underscores our shared humanity. When the Human Genome Project was completed, leading geneticists famously stated that race has no genetic or scientific basis – we are fundamentally one people (Race in a Genetic World | Harvard Magazine). Differences exist, but they are small and superficial compared to the vast genetic inheritance we all share. Good science and sound theology both point to the unity of humankind. And any observed differences among groups should lead us not to arrogance or fatalism but to ask how we can ensure justice, opportunity, and understanding for all – as well as to marvel at the creativity of God, who made humans adaptable to many environments.
In sum, the claim that race determines behavior or intelligence is not backed by Scripture nor by science. Christians should firmly reject such determinism. Instead, we uphold that character is shaped by spiritual condition and upbringing, and that all peoples have equal capacity to reflect God’s image when redeemed in Christ. As Galatians 3:28 reminds us, in the thing that matters most – our standing before God – racial distinctions simply hold no weight.
Claim 3: Racial Diversity Was Part of God’s Original Design (Not a Curse)
The hosts the argument that different races exist because God intentionally planned it, embedding the potential for all racial traits in the first humans. They insist that race is not a result of human sin or God’s judgment (for example, they reject the idea that races arose as a punishment at Babel). One of them states:
“All of these genetic differences between the various races of men existed in Adam. They were part of God’s plan from the beginning.” (00:44:30)
And regarding Babel, they add that some claim race was a punishment from God at Babel, but “that is lying about God, that is high-handed sin… The various races of men are part of God’s plan because God intended for us to spread over the face of the world… and He built into Adam the ability to do that.” (paraphrasing their remarks around 00:44:39–00:45:08).
In essence, the hosts argue that the diversification of humanity into different nations and ethnic groups is a positive, God-ordained development. Therefore it is, in their eyes, sinful for races to mix or live together in the same land.
Biblical Response: As will almost all their arguments what starts out as a kernel of truth is taken to an extreme that does not exist. There are elements of truth here, but also areas requiring critical examination. From a confessional Lutheran perspective, we would agree that God is over history and that He planned to create “every nation of mankind” (Acts 17:26) and ultimately to redeem a people for Himself from all those nations (Revelation 7:9). However, saying that racial differences were “in Adam” and fully intended from the start and therefore the races today should remain separate is wrong. Let us have a biblical understanding:
God’s Plan in Creation: When God created Adam and Eve, He certainly knew the future of humanity – including the wonderful tapestry of cultures and peoples that would arise. In that sense, nothing about human diversity is an accident from God’s viewpoint. We can say God intended to create one human family that would develop into many groups. So yes, God’s original design for humanity included the capacity for variety. This variety in itself is good, just as all of God’s creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Think of how God loves diversity in nature – countless species of plants and animals – and likewise He permitted humanity to diversify in appearance and culture while remaining one mankind.
The Role of Babel: The confusion of languages at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) is indeed a judgment God. Mankind, united in prideful ambition to “make a name” for ourselves, refused to spread out as God commanded. God intervened by confusing their language, not their ethnicity or race. No ethnicity is cursed in Scripture. The curse of sin is on all humanity, and the specific curse at Babel was on universal communication, not on any particular lineage.
Providence and Plurality: Acts 17:26-27 gives a New Testament perspective on the nations: God “made from one man every nation… having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward Him and find Him.” This tells us that God providentially guided the development of nations, setting their times and places. And His goal in doing so was ultimately spiritual – that people in all these cultures might seek the Lord. We will recall the concept of God’s two kingdoms: in His left-hand kingdom (the temporal world), God is at work through history, even through things like the rise and fall of nations, to further His good purposes for the right-hand kingdom (the kingdom of grace, the Church). So yes, diversity of nations is in God’s providence. But Scripture is clear that apart from God the nations are groping in the dark (“feel their way toward Him”). In the fullness of time, God did something remarkable to unite the divided peoples: He sent His Son to break down the barriers. Ephesians 2:14-17 beautifully says that Christ “has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility… creating in Himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace.” This specifically refers to Jew and Gentile unity in Christ, but by extension, any groups that were divided find unity in Jesus. Pentecost (Acts 2) is often seen as a redemptive reversal of Babel – where the confusion of languages is overcome by the Holy Spirit, enabling the Gospel to be heard by people of many tongues. Ultimately, God’s plan from the beginning was to “gather together in one all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1:10, NKJV) – that includes people from every racial and ethnic background.
So, is racial diversity part of God’s plan? Yes, in the sense that God allowed and even engineered the formation of many peoples, with the intention of saving people from all of them. But it’s important not to state this in a way that implies God desires racial divisions to be permanent or accompanied by strife. The hosts seem concerned to portray race as a positive good in itself. We can appreciate their desire to see God’s hand in diversity. Indeed, different cultures have contributed beautifully to the human story – art, music, language, etc., are enriched by our various backgrounds. However, from a Scriptural view, we must remember that because of sin, those differences have also been sources of prejudice, war, and pride. That is not from God. What God intends for good (a world filled with diverse peoples to steward creation and seek Him), humans often twist into something evil (racism, ethnocentrism, violence).
Therefor, we encourage gratitude for one’s heritage without turning it into an idol. It is perfectly fine – good, even – to love the particular culture or ethnicity God placed you in. But, our primary identity as Christians is in Christ, not in our race or nationality. “Our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20).
Thus, any teaching that overemphasizes racial distinctions as part of God’s plan encourages division and/or pride. Paul confronted Peter when Peter separated himself from Gentile Christians out of ethnic custom, saying Peter’s conduct “was not in step with the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:14). In Christ, people remain Jews or Greeks in a cultural sense, but those differences should no longer cause separation or hostility. The “mystery” revealed in the Gospel is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs with the Jews (Ephesians 3:6).
Scripture refutes the idea that emphasizing “one human race” contradicts God’s design. Rather, God’s design is one human race made up of many sub-groupings – and His saving plan is to reunite what was scattered, in the Church. So yes, the Lord intended a diversity of nations, but not so that we would boast in our tribe over others or remain alienated. He intended it as part of a grand narrative that finds its climax in Jesus gathering the nations into one redeemed people. At the end of time, people retain their ethnic distinctions (John’s vision in Revelation recognizes “every tribe and language”), yet they are perfectly one in worshiping God together. That is the ultimate fruition of God’s plan.
To conclude this point: Scripture does not consider racial differences as having good and evil, moral, or character implications – they are part of God’s richly varied creation. We do not consider them a spiritual or moral virtue or something to emphasize above our unity in Christ. The hosts assert it’s wrong to call racial diversity a punishment; in one sense, they are right – diversity per se is not a curse. The true biblical “curse” is the punishment of sin (death). And the cure for that curse is Christ, who by His blood “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). That is where our focus must lie: the Lamb who brings us together. Any doctrine of race that overshadows the doctrine of Christ’s reconciliation is out of balance.
Claim 4: Interracial Marriage is Harmful and Morally Questionable
One of the more startling implications in the podcast is the hosts’ warning against “mixed lineage.” They suggest that children of parents from different races are more prone to certain diseases, and they frame the choice to marry across racial lines as potentially selfish or immoral because it might “steal” health or genetic blessings from future generations. The discussion includes statements like:
“You do actually see more diseases crop up in those who have a mixed lineage than those who do not.” (00:55:21)
“That is a consideration for Christians… What you have from your ancestors is what was given to you by God… You are supposed to pass that on to your children. You can, through poor decisions, steal from the next generation through your selfish decisions… That is a moral consideration.” (00:55:26-49)
In plainer terms, the hosts argue that if a Christian with a certain ethnic heritage chooses to marry and have children with someone of a very different heritage, they might be introducing genetic complications or losing some of the unique genetic traits God gave their lineage. They view preserving one’s ancestral line (genetically speaking) as a stewardship responsibility. Thus, interracial marriage is seen as something that should be approached with caution, and possibly avoided, for the sake of children’s well-being and fidelity to God’s design.
Biblical Response: This claim needs to be addressed firmly with truth, because it touches on real people’s lives and relationships, and it can easily cause harm if misunderstood. From a biblical standpoint, there is no prohibition against marriages between people of different ethnic backgrounds. The only consistently stated boundary for marriage in Scripture is religious faith, not race. Let’s examine relevant biblical evidence:
Old Testament Examples: While Old Testament Israel was indeed wary of intermarriage, the concern was religious, not ethnic purity. Deuteronomy 7:3-4 commanded the Israelites not to marry the Canaanites “for they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods.” The danger was idolatry, not the mixing of bloodlines itself. In fact, when foreigners joined Israel in worshiping the true God, they were accepted – and even welcomed into the lineage of God’s people. Two prominent examples: Ruth and Rahab. Ruth was a Moabite woman who married an Israelite (Boaz); far from this being condemned, Ruth becomes the great-grandmother of King David (Ruth 4:13-22) and is honored in Jesus Christ’s genealogy (Matthew 1:5). Rahab was a Canaanite from Jericho who joined Israel, married Salmon, and also appears in Jesus’ genealogy and the Hall of Faith (Matthew 1:5, Hebrews 11:31). Neither of these godly women’s interracial marriages are spoken of negatively – on the contrary, they are part of God’s redemptive plan! Also consider Moses: He married Zipporah, a Midianite, and later in Numbers 12:1 it’s noted that he had a “Cushite” (Ethiopian) wife. When Moses’ siblings Aaron and Miriam objected, God rebuked them, not Moses. God even struck Miriam with leprosy as punishment for speaking against Moses’ wife (Numbers 12:9-10).
New Testament Teaching: In the New Testament, the Gospel breaks down the divisions between Jew and Gentile. Marriage between Jewish and Gentile Christians became a non-issue except insofar as it was a union in the Lord. The Apostle Paul’s primary counsel on whom to marry is found in 1 Corinthians 7:39, where he says a widow is free to remarry “only in the Lord.” That is, the person she marries should be a believer. 2 Corinthians 6:14 reinforces this by warning against being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers. But never does the New Testament say to be “yoked” only with someone of your own ethnicity. The early church was a mix of races from its very inception – Syrians, Greeks, Romans, Ethiopians, Egyptians, Jews, etc. When Paul gives instructions about marriage or about how Christians should treat one another, there is no command or even a suggestion that they should segregate by ethnicity, clan, nation, etc. What matters is shared faith and mutual love.
Theological Understanding: From a confessional Lutheran viewpoint, marriage is part of God’s good creation (a First Article gift) and is intended for the mutual companionship of husband and wife (Genesis 2:18, “a helper fit for him”), as well as for raising any children in the nurture of the Lord. The Lutheran Confessions do not address ethnicity or race when it comes to marriage, but they uphold that marriage is a natural institution, and the only things that disqualify a marriage are things like adultery or abandonment – not ethnic difference. In history, one might note that Lutheran missionaries and converts of different ethnicities did marry; what mattered was their common Christian faith. The idea that Christians should not marry across racial lines is a relatively modern concept fueled by racism, not by our doctrinal heritage. In fact, such ideas were rightly challenged by church leaders during the Civil Rights era, recognizing that they stem from sinful prejudice, not God’s Word.
Scientific/Practical Response: The hosts’ specific claim that “mixed lineage” leads to more disease is an oversimplification that is not supported by the broad evidence.
Genetic Diversity: When two people from very dissimilar genetic backgrounds have children, those children actually often have greater genetic diversity. In many cases, this is beneficial. For example, certain recessive genetic disorders are more common in populations that have been isolated (due to marrying within a small community over generations). When the parents are from different ethnic groups, they are less likely to both carry the same recessive disease genes, so the child is less likely to express those particular genetic diseases. This is why, for instance, two carriers of the sickle-cell gene (more common in a homogeneous population) might risk a child with sickle-cell anemia, but if only one parent has that African-ancestry gene and the other doesn’t, the child won’t have the disease (only possibly the benign carrier trait). It’s extremely difficult to generalize health outcomes, because environment and lifestyle play huge roles too. In general, there is no consensus that mixed-race individuals are less healthy. In fact, some research points to potential health advantages in genetic mixing, something called “hybrid vigor” in biology. The idea of “pure bloodlines” being healthier is a misconception not supported by the evidence.
“Stealing” from the Next Generation?: The language used here is morally loaded. They portray marrying someone of another race as if it were akin to depriving your children of some birthright. This is a deeply flawed moral calculus. Nowhere does Scripture suggest that we owe our ancestors or descendants a duty to keep our ethnic lineage “pure.” Rather, our duty to our children is to bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4) and to care for their physical and spiritual well-being. That includes choosing a godly spouse who will be a loving mother or father. A Christian of another ethnicity can certainly fulfill that role excellently. What truly harms children is not having parents of two ethnic backgrounds, but having parents who are unloving, or who do not teach them about Jesus, or who are divided in faith. If anything, a home where two cultures are present can be a rich environment for a child – they inherit a broader heritage. What is most important is that they are taught the faith as their inheritance (Malachi 2:15).
Some Christians may worry about interracial marriage because of cultural differences or potential racism the family might face. Those are practical concerns that a couple can work through with love, understanding, and support from the church. But to declare such marriages morally wrong or against God’s plan is beyond what Scripture teaches. In Christ, there is freedom to marry “in the Lord” regardless of ethnicity.
One might also note the ultimate vision of eternity: people of all ethnicities together as one family of God. There won’t be separate sections in heaven for each race. Marriage as we know it is a temporal institution (Jesus said in the resurrection people “neither marry nor are given in marriage,” Matthew 22:30). Thus, it’s our eternal family – the body of Christ – that matters most. On earth, marrying across ethnic lines is one small foretaste of that eternal reality of unity. It is a beautiful witness that Christ has erased the old hostilities.
Refuting the “Health” Argument, a Brief Practical Case Study: If a young Christian from, say, a Northern European background and a Christian from an African background are considering marriage, what should they be told? Certainly not that their kids will be diseased! Instead, the counsel should revolve around their shared values, how they will honor each other’s cultural heritages, how they will navigate any differences, and how they will raise children in the faith.
Thus, a Christian refutation of the hosts’ stance is this: Scripture sets the precedent of transcending ethnic barriers in fellowship and family. Any two Christians who enter into marriage with mutual love and commitment form a union that God is pleased to bless, with no regard of their ethnic origins. Their children are gifts from God (Psalm 127:3), and those children will be loved by God and capable of serving Him just as much as any other. There is no biblical basis to declare such a marriage morally wrong; doing so would actually re-establish a “dividing wall” that Christ died to tear down (Ephesians 2:14).
Finally, let’s consider love: The essence of Christian ethics is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31, Leviticus 19:18). If two neighbors (or two believers from different backgrounds) love each other enough to become family, that love is not to be scorned but celebrated – provided it is kept within the bounds of God’s design for marriage (faithfulness, one man and one woman, etc.). Love “does no harm to a neighbor” (Romans 13:10); marrying across racial lines harms no one. On the contrary, all faithful marriages are a testimony of Christ and His Bride the Church.
The hosts call interracial marriage a “selfish decision,” but there is no Scriptural warrant for such an assessment, merely their warped and malformed opinion. There is nothing selfish about two people breaking down an old social barrier to honor Christ’s unity. If anything, it may require courage and selflessness to face potential social backlash. The church should surround such couples with support and joy for God’s good gift of marriage.
In summary: There is no biblical or scientific warrant for forbidding, shaming, or condemning interracial marriage. The concerns about genetic health are unfounded as general rules. And morally, Scripture’s command is to marry “in the Lord,” not “within your race.” Any teaching that adds extra conditions to marriage beyond what God has given falls into the category of human tradition or legalism. The confessional Lutheran approach honors Christian freedom in areas not defined as sin by Scripture – and ethnicity in marriage is one such area of freedom. Let us affirm the good of marriages that reflect the unifying power of the Gospel, and let our churches be places where, as in Acts 13:1, people of many ethnic backgrounds can worship and serve God together in harmony.
Conclusion: One Humanity, One Savior
The Stone Choir episode “On Human Race: Foundational Matters” lays a crooked line, calling it straight. As we have seen, however, they are at odds with both clear biblical teaching and scientific understanding:
Theologically, Scripture teaches the profound unity of the human race in creation, fall, and redemption. We are all children of Adam, all bear God’s image, all sinners, and all offered salvation through Christ. Any “subdivisions” among us (national, ethnic, linguistic, etc.) are secondary to this fundamental truth. The Bible’s grand narrative moves from the unity of Eden, through the dispersion of Babel, toward the restored unity of the Kingdom of God where people from every nation unite in worship. To elevate racial distinctions as if they change our worth before God is to miss the heart of the Gospel. God’s Word calls us to brotherly love across all lines: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” (Colossians 3:11 KJV).
Scientifically, humanity is remarkably unified. Modern genetics confirms that what we call “races” blend into one another with no strict borders. Superficial differences like skin color, while fascinating and adaptive, occupy a minute portion of our genetic code. There is no scientific evidence that divides us into multiple biological species or that allocates intellect and character by race. Instead, factors like culture, education, and opportunity largely shape the differences we see in people groups. Science, in fact, has helped debunk many racist myths, showing for example that everyone has the same building blocks in their DNA, and typically more variation exists between two individuals of the same ethnic group than between group averages (Race in a Genetic World | Harvard Magazine). Good science and medicine acknowledge ancestry where relevant (for targeted care) but ultimately treat each person as an individual – just as Christian theology treats each person as an individual soul of equal value.
Since Stone Choir gets the very foundation wrong (as hinted at in their episode title), it makes the whole structure off (the following three episodes). The cracked foundation leads to rot in the rest of the structure. How should we talk about race instead?
The Christian Church must approach discussions of race with both truth and love. There is no place for pride or hatred based on race in the heart of a Christian (1 John 2:9, 11). The hosts of Stone Choir expressed frustration that people use accusations of racism as a “cudgel,” and it’s true that in public discourse this can happen unjustly. Yet we also must humbly recognize that racism is a real sin that has harmed countless people, and since it is a sin we should be quick to repent of it and resist it in ourselves. We are all beggars before God’s grace; there is no room for feelings of racial superiority, which are works of the flesh (pride, hatred). Instead, we are called to “put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony” (Colossians 3:14). The harmony spoken of is a multi-ethnic choir of God’s people, if you will – a “Stone Choir” built of living stones from every nation, singing praise to the same Lord in perfect love and harmony.
A Final Word
When we refute errors about race, we do so not to win arguments but to win hearts to the truth of Christ. The truth is that Jesus Christ shed His blood for every person – for the little child in Africa, the elderly man in Asia, the young woman in Europe, the factory worker in America. As Revelation 5:9 declares, by His blood He ransomed people “from every tribe and language and people and nation.” That is the clearest declaration of human worth: if Christ considered each of these people worth dying for, who are we to demean or devalue anyone based on lineage?
Furthermore, our Lord Jesus in His earthly ministry deliberately reached across ethnic divides – speaking with a Samaritan woman (John 4), praising the faith of a Roman centurion (Matthew 8), healing a Syrophoenician’s daughter (Mark 7). He demonstrated that love of neighbor knows no ethnic boundary. The apostolic church followed suit: Philip baptized an Ethiopian official (Acts 8), Peter welcomed the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10), and the church at Antioch was a melting pot of backgrounds (Acts 13:1) as was the church at Rome. This was not a sidelined social program; it was central to the Church’s identity. Paul joyfully saw the wall between Jew and Gentile come down, and he would rebuke anyone who tried to rebuild it (Galatians 2:11-14). In Christ, the old divisions were rendered obsolete.
Therefore we affirm a balanced, biblical view of race: God created the rich tapestry of human diversity, and it is to be appreciated, but not worshipped or used for evil. Our primary identity is in Christ, not in our ethnicity or nationality. We can cherish our cultural heritage as a gift from God, and at the same time embrace brothers and sisters from other heritages as equally precious gifts. The church of Christ is where the dividing lines of the world are overcome by the reconciling power of the cross.
To any Christian wrestling with these issues: we encourage you to test everything against Scripture (Acts 17:11). Does the teaching promote love, humility, and the glory of God’s grace for all? Or does it promote pride, fear, or division? The answers become clear in the light of God’s Word. As we have shown, many claims made in this podcast do not hold up under that light.
In a world still plagued by ethnic strife and racist ideologies, the Church has the opportunity to shine as something different – a family where “red and yellow, black and white, all are precious in His sight,” as the children’s song goes. This is not a naive cliché; it is the very outworking of Christ’s mission. Our confessional Lutheran stance is firmly that all people, without distinction, are equally lost in sin and equally invited into the forgiveness Christ earned on the cross. We therefore oppose any teaching that would segregate or value people differently on the basis of race, for such teaching undermines the Gospel itself.
We therefore respond to Stone Choir’s “foundational matters” with the truly foundational truths of our faith: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6 NKJV). And there is one Savior of all, Jesus Christ. This one God created one human race, diverse in its members yet meant to be united in love. May we, as His people, uphold that unity and love, refuting errors that lead to pride or fear, and bearing witness to the world of a better way – the way of Christ-like love that truly values every human being for whom Christ died.
Want a certain Stone Choir episode covered? Reach out!