Unequally Yoked: Love, Race, and the Church in 1970s London

A: Picture 1970s London. You have this couple, an Indian immigrant man and a first-generation Jamaican Pentecostal woman. And just walking down the street, together, they'd draw stares. Not just general curiosity, but pointed looks, often from white passers-by.

B: So, the mixed-race aspect was immediately evident and causing a stir, even just in public?

A: Absolutely. But if the street was challenging, imagine walking into an 11 AM Sunday service. Specifically, a Jamaican-led Pentecostal church. Here, this union was seen as deeply problematic. The religious objection was that they were 'unequally yoked'.

B: Unequally yoked... meaning not just different, but fundamentally incompatible in a spiritual sense?

A: Precisely. And it wasn't just a quiet disapproval. An Indian man with a beard, or even a Pakistani man in a leather jacket, walking in with his Jamaican partner? That wasn't seen as a visitor. It symbolized rebellion, often perceived as an intimidating presence, almost a threat, rather than a prospective member or even just a husband.

B: A threat? Simply for accompanying his wife to church? That's... intense.

A: Indeed. So, it wasn't just about 'unequally yoked' in a spiritual sense. There was a very explicit, almost economic, policing of single first-generation Jamaican Pentecostal women in these churches.

B: Policing? What exactly does that look like in that context? And why focus on economics?

A: Well, there was a clear preference, a hierarchy, in who these women were expected to marry. And shockingly, it was often white English males who were prioritized over Indian immigrants. The rationale was deeply rooted in perceived upward mobility.

B: White English males were preferred? That's quite a revelation, considering the initial racial tensions we discussed. What was the tangible benefit there?

A: It came down to practicalities: marriage to a white man offered crucial access to mortgages and private rentals that were much harder for Black or Asian immigrants to secure on their own in 1970s London. It was seen as a pathway to navigating a very hierarchical social ladder.

B: So, Indian men, despite being enterprising, were viewed as providing limited economic opportunities, while white men offered a literal key to housing and stability... and that was openly discussed?

A: Absolutely. It was a form of segregation within the church itself. And here's the kicker: Indian men were simultaneously expected to either marry within their own community or, ironically, also seek a white English partner for their own advancement. A double standard, really.

A: It's such a stark contrast, isn't it? You look at those experiences from the 70s in London, and then you fast forward to today, especially in multicultural hubs like London or even Toronto...

B: And it's a completely different world. Those unions that were once so heavily scrutinized are now... just normal.

A: Precisely. Today, a third-generation British-Jamaican and a second-generation British-Indian couple? Completely accepted. The children of those original 'rebellious' unions, they're grown, and they have a really powerful take on their parents' experiences.

B: I'm curious what their take is. How do they frame it?

A: They don't mince words. They look back at that 1970s church ideology and label it a 'modern form of British Colonial Religion.'

B: Wow, 'modern form of British Colonial Religion.' That's quite the statement, but it makes sense given what we've heard about the hierarchy and exclusion.

A: It really does. They trace it back, saying this ideology was rooted in Jamaica, then adapted and modified to fit the unique immigrant context of 1970s London.