Kentucky church votes to ban interracial couples

Not clear how the pastor can resign and then lead the church to this (or any) decision.

This was pretty common position among fundamentalists half a century ago, but I have only rarely encountered it in actual church members during my adult life (I’m 40).

I would assume they are legally able to make such a stand in the same way many churches make distinction based on gender. I just can’t believe this kind of racist hermeneutic is still popping up in the church. It will be interesting to see how the Free Will leadership handle this. Not too familiar with the denominational structure.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Not clear how the pastor can resign and then lead the church to this (or any) decision.

Other coverage of the story shows that he resigned in August for health reasons, but is still an active member of the church. The current pastor voted against it and is seeking a resolution to the issue from the regional conference, which is prepared to boot the church if they don’t come up with something.

My understanding is that there is one race - the human race. There are ethnic groups within that race, but we are all interreated - we are the offspring of Adam and Eve.
There is no superiority of one ethnic group over another, and, since heaven is to be populated with all people groups, we must on this side of heaven be ready to accept all people groups.
I can make a strong case for no marriage between saved and unsaved, and have chosen not to do a wedding where both were saved but I felt he had little concern for spiritual issues, but I find no reason to refuse a marriage between two dedicated, spiritually compatible believers.

They ignore all the progress that evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have been making on race in America and all over the world for decades in order to play up one marginal story like this. Also, the many churches who fail to bar membership to people for BIBLICAL reasons is a much bigger problem than the few who pull nonsense like this. Consider the context: millions upon millions of Christians were brutally persecuted to the point of death by the Marxists in the last 100 years. Right now the same thing is going on with Muslims doing the same to Christians, including a huge number of black African Christians being oppressed by Arabs (see Sudan for instance). Do those stories get anywhere near the coverage that this will get?

Racism is sin, and sin will never be abolished - even in the church - until Jesus Christ comes back. The problem is that we treat racism as if it is some social ill that can be eradicated by education or something like that instead of sin. Racism is no different from fornication, theft, lying, blasphemy … it has always happened and until Jesus Christ returns it always will.

So yes, these Christians erred, but Christians do err. The solution is to show love and patience to these errant brothers and sisters (along with rebuke, correction and exposure to the proper interpretation and application of relevant scripture) and to pray for them, not to join the politically correct witch hunt in order to show the world that - unlike these Christians - hate Jesus Christ how liberal and enlightened we are. Now I haven’t seen any flaming darts thrown at this congregation on here thankfully, but a quick web search will reveal PLENTY of Christians out there zealous to join the heathen in casting stones. (Not a few of them are on black sites who likely weren’t as principled in their outrage against racism in religion when it came to Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama, to use one example.)

A proper loving Christian response to this situation is needed, not following after the ways of the world, especially the ideologies and doctrines of the heretical “civil rights movement” whose “Christian” leaders often denied such doctrines as original sin, the virgin birth, deity and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and showed utter contempt for Romans 13:1-3, not to mention 1 Peter 2:13-25.

Any word if they were led by a Bob Jones grad?

This is an obvious attack by the media on good fundamentalists everywhere! I don’t believe any of it!

Matthew

but then Baptist churches are allowed to be that dumb. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be Baptist. As for the fine hand of BJU, I kinds doubt it as the church is a Free Will Baptist one

The the vote will soon be reversed when the majority of sane members rise up and do what’s right

Doubt there is a BJU connection at all

Dumber than a box of hammers

but then Baptist churches are allowed to be that dumb. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be Baptist.

That almost sounds like a prejudicial remark against Baptists — regarding a story about being prejudice. Surely, that was written in jest, right?

As was stated in a previous comment, the current pastor opposes the view of the previous pastor, so he did not allow the vote to come before the church. However, the previous pastor, because he is still a member of the church, was able to corral enough other members to force the vote to come before the church. Almost sounds petition-like, doesn’t it?

Racism is sin

This may be true and it may not be true depending on the definition of racism and the construct in which it may be practiced.

Alex, when is racism not sinful?

One would have to provide a definition of racism, first, before being able to determine whether the claim, “racism is a sin” is true or not. I have read or heard definitions of racism that fail prescription. So, again, what is racism, precisely?

Racisim is being a respecter of persons based upon ethnicity or skin color

And I think that the sin of racism is that it fails to understand that all men are created in the image of God

[Jim Peet] Racisim is being a respecter of persons based upon ethnicity or skin color

And I think that the sin of racism is that it fails to understand that all men are created in the image of God

So if this is the definition where in the Bible do we explicitly (I refer to explicitness since the original quote is a statement of that kind, I do realize not all truths are explicit in theie form in Scripture) see this being taught as sinful (especially that it is sinful in all contexts)?

* BTW to be a “respecter of persons” is simply to show favoritism to one person over the other, not necessarily to fail to understand that the person receiving the favorable treatment is any less equal as a person. We show types of favoritism all the time and it does not demand people assume we view those not receiving preferential treatment any less equal as a person so this assumption, I believe, is a very brittle one. It might be true but I do not believe it can, at all, safely be assumed and would have to be demonstrated or proven.

Some times reality is funnier than anything Bob Hope’s crew of writers could come up with.

My comment is based on the one of the foundational Baptist principles:
The Autonomy and Independence of the Local Church.

So, my comment isn’t prejudiced against Baptists. It was predjuced against stupidity.

[Brenda T]

Dumber than a box of hammers

but then Baptist churches are allowed to be that dumb. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be Baptist.

That almost sounds like a prejudicial remark against Baptists — regarding a story about being prejudice. Surely, that was written in jest, right?

As was stated in a previous comment, the current pastor opposes the view of the previous pastor, so he did not allow the vote to come before the church. However, the previous pastor, because he is still a member of the church, was able to corral enough other members to force the vote to come before the church. Almost sounds petition-like, doesn’t it?