Skip to comments.Small Ky. church votes against interracial couples, prompting race argument between members
Posted on 11/30/2011 7:58:54 PM PST by TSgt
LOUISVILLE, Ky. A tiny all-white Appalachian church in rural Kentucky has voted to ban interracial couples from joining its flock, pitting members against each other in an argument over race.
Members at the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted Sunday on the resolution, which says the church does not condone interracial marriage. The church member who crafted the resolution, Melvin Thompson, said he is not racist and called the matter an internal affair.
I am not racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil about a race, said Thompson, the churchs former pastor who stepped down earlier this year. Thats what this is being portrayed as, but it is not.
Church secretary Dean Harville disagrees: He says the resolution came after his daughter visited the church this summer with her boyfriend from Africa.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Unequally yoked refers to believers vs. non-believers.
If it were an all-black church, this wouldn’t be a story would it?
Yet they’re all no doubt firmly convinced that they’re Christians. Sad.
They're probably still jumping and shouting down there.
They'd do that if you brought a guy with a Serbian surname to church, or, in some places, an individual with an uppercrust British accent.
There are libraries of books about the folkways of mountain people.
They are as certainly correct about that as you are. Did God instruct you to look down your nose at the Hillbillies?
Are hillbillies the new bigots? The language changes so quickly that I cannot keep up.
Sadly, people have attempted to assert their twisted interpretation of Scripture as being Scripture for centuries.
When they do, they often leave behind wounded and bruised people, many of whom become closed off to the gospel.
This decision will almost certainly have that effect on some; they will avoid the Good Shepherd because they were bitten by the sheep.
Goofed up theology. If they want to do this, hey, on a worldly plane they’re a private association and the constitution does not bar it. But it’s goofed up and does not reflect well on Jesus Christ or the gospel.
I worked with a guy from the sticks and he said one time his grandma took him out in the yard and said look up thair and see that blue jay uhu and look over there and see that cardnal uhu now theyd both be birds but the don’t mix it up and that is the way white folks and dark folks are.
Someone who’s met the gospel requirements for receiving Christ ceases to be Christian because they have an error that particularly offends modern sensibilities?
I don’t think so. I think they grieve the Holy Spirit, but I don’t think they cease to be what God himself has deemed to be Christians.
If they want to be a church like Westboro Baptist, they are on their way.
A cardinal jay would be a biological impossibility, not so this... this ain’t redneck this ain’t even hillbilly this is pure hick.
Westburros are not a gospel church with a quirk. They are a whole nother kind of twisty critter.
Likewise. I was also taught in church that dancing "in the round", as it was called, was wrong but square dancing was acceptable.
Good thing no Catholics are involved or you’d be ready to stone them.
Yeah, this sounds like another RAT-church. The WBC are NOT Christian...Taliban maybe.
Westboro be insane.
A sad twisting of Scripture. Ruth and Rahab were not Hebrews but converted and were awarded with their faithfulness by being ancestors of Jesus.
No, because all of us in the know realize that far more blacks than whites are against inter-racial marriage. This, however, will never be remarked upon by “enlightened” people.
I guess they never touched on triangles huh.
The grape juice gospel is sad, because it misses a very real phenomenon of holy intoxication (that does not mean being soused out of your gourd, nor partaking if it creates a genuine health problem for you). If a symbolic communion is used, it would not make a difference given the small amounts consumed whether it was wine or Welch’s. But the grape juice gospel hardly explains how Welch’s sans alcohol could have the effects of “new wine.” Nobody gets giddy over grape juice. (Now I’ve heard artificial grape flavoring claimed to make kids hyperactive, but never the real mccoy.)
That's not to say I've heard plenty of stuff both ways over the years being in highly segregated SE Michigan which can give anyplace a run for its money (both ways), but it wasn't considered acceptable behavior inside a church.
Good one! :-)
Another memory of my church upbringing (dating back to the late 1940's and early 1950's) was that smoking was just fine. After services, the preacher and a good part of the men in the congregation would blaze away on portico around the building.
In many ways, my childhood was a better era. Smoking was considered a part of being sociable. Homosexuality was rightfully and unabashedly taught as an abomination. Today's twisted world is upside down thanks to liberalism. Smoking is now treated as an abomination and sodomy is considered the norm. Thank goodness my church has not altered its stance on sodomy by one degree. And thank goodness for Free Republic as an oasis of sanity.
I think it’s good and proper to heed genuine advances in medical scientific knowledge. What was that brand of cigarettes that half of doctors chose in the fifties? Now more people refrain and that’s good. Those few fellows (I don’t know a gal who does it) at the church I go who smoke, do it discreetly on the front sidewalk or at home. We do not bug them personally for it. But we believe in general that if something is known to be harmful to your body, a temple of the Holy Spirit, a Christian should make an effort to refrain from it.
Get used to tribalism. It’s the way of socialist diversity race doctrines which promotes hatred of the other and loyality by race for the cause of race power. Whites will join it and why should they not?
We need to stop it all. But we only get our noses screwed out of joint when we see whitey do it. Our society is very twisted and sick.
Oh, the irony!
Just curious, what denomination were you brought up in?
Its a little weird, I've seen survey on it in the past, and it seems that its black women (by a hugh overwhelming amount) that oppose inter-racial marriages.
I recall one survey putting the percentages in the low 90's of black women who are opposed. I actually asked someone I know about it (she was black) and she had a pretty quit witted answer....."You can probably name alot of black guys with white girls, but how many black girls you know or see with white guys?"...........I'd never actually noticed it until then.
Interesting. I go to a Calvinist, predestinarian PCA(very conservative and Biblically orthodox) church and we have at least one interracial couple in our congregation. I’ve never heard anyone make an issue about it.
The church of Christ (sometimes known colloquially as dunkin' Campbellites).
While not trying to evangelize anyone tonight, I will recount an experience from an extended summer vacation in 2008. I took a lengthy roadtrip during the height of the general election and made a point to stop by our congregations for Sunday and Wednesday services. I am pleased to report that I saw not a single bumper sticker on a car in the church parking lot for Obama. There were quite a few for Palin (and the guy she ran with) and a good number of 'W' stickers from 2004. Also there were plenty for our military. My travels to me took me places from Lubbock, Texas to Franklin, Tennessee and up into Missouri and Illinois.
George Benson, former president of a church of Christ college (Harding University), had this insightful lesson, The War We Are In: Communism vs. Capitalism. It's rather dated (1962) but the message rings true today.
Thanks. I’ll try to watch that video later.
At my church, I saw a car with this bumper sticker on it: “Vote for Obama. Because everyone else deserves what you worked so hard to achieve.” I figured both a liberal and a conservative would approve of that bumper sticker for completely opposite reasons.
A former pastor of mine told me once in the very conservative OPC denomination, at General Assembly the elders would pass a resolution disciplining an elder for using a street car on the sabbath. Then, they’d go outside for a smoke. So I was wondering if you were OPC. I never knew Church of Christ was so laid back about smoking.
I watched a documentary about Westboro, made by perhaps the world’s stupidest documentary film maker. But he was able to show that the leader is a dictatorial jackass, a carbon copy of James Jones. Won’t surprise me if they all end up dead, full of Kool-aid.
Because each congregation is autonomous, the attitudes about smoking will vary from location to location. There's not a top-down hierarchy to set cultural standards. I've even been to a few church of Christ congregations where instrumental music accompanies what it typically acapella singing during service.
I think the fact that smoking was tolerated was a function of the era (post WWII when soldiers smoked a good bit) and due to the geographical location, western Pennsylvania and West Virginia where the millworker culture embraced smoking. Of course, at that time, the steel mills were running full blast so we all smoked whatever was pouring out the smokestacks of J&L, USS, Weirton and so forth. :-)
A brief foray into light-hearted religious humor in this thread and I hope no one takes any offense.
I have a longtime friend who became a Cumberland Presbyterian minister. He said that the symbol of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) was the wine goblet and if the founders of the CPC were on the ball (and were sufficiently whimsical), they would have used a jug with "XXX" for their symbol. :-)
He was kidding, of course, but did note that the Cumberland Presbyterians did have an image of being somewhat more rustic the PCUSA.
Does XX denote a moonshine which isn’t quite as strong?
I can’t quote the survey I read as it didn’t break down the numbers by sex, but I’m not surprised. Black women have a hard time finding mates because so many men are in prison or have lower paying jobs. It’s sad.
I can't say one way or another since I have no first-hand experience. But I would surmise that this would be mighty powerful stuff (based upon the principle of X being a multiplier).
rats, it won’t let me look
I've read that, and heard that, but here is the thing, you ever notice in most movies, the black girl (with maybe the exception of Halle Berry) rarely winds up with a white guy, and this is liberal leftwing hollywood which has no problem with a black guy and a white girl.
In real life, Halle Berry has strictly stayed with (some very bad) black guys. I think it might be more then anyone is willing to admit, or is they feel uncomfortable saying, black women may be that much more racist that any other group, more then anyone cares to or dares say.
FWIW, and this is only anecdotal, alot of the black women I have known, despite having boyfriends or husbands of their own, still spoke with anger and hostility when the topic of inter-racial marriage comes up, and not just strictly black/white or white/black.
“Blacks are more racist than Whites.”
~ Larry Elder, “The Ten Things You Can’t Say In America”
Yes, and it’s also due to the lack of available men for black women to date and marry. This doesn’t excuse racist bahavior on their part either. It’s an interesting psychological point that you mention.
I particularly don't care much about a group of people that says silly stuff, thus the vote of this church doesn't sway me one way or the other. I also see what you are trying to say, and someone can indeed meet the Gospel requirements of being a Christian and still say or do very silly things. It is by the Grace of God and acceptance of Christ that any person can be saved.
However, I wouldn't call what the church stated an offense to 'modern sensibilities.' It is far more than that ...it is directly false and thoroughly un-Biblical doctrine. This is not about being PC or non-PC ...it is just straight silly. Furthermore, it is not even Biblical to begin with (unless the Church has decided to omit Galatians 3:28 for example). It may come as a surprise to them, but the redemption of Christ is not based on the amount of melanin one has (or doesn't have) in their skin's epidermis.
Anyways, my point was that this is not about 'modern sensibilities' but rather something that is in the Bible. I agree with everything you are saying, and I also personally don't care what a group of people may think about me - I was only mentioning the modern sensibilities, because it is actually something that was important enough to make it in the Word. It is not political correctness but rather something that is not only not Biblical, it is false doctrine.
Galatians 3:28: 'In Him the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free man, male and female, disappear; you are all one in Christ Jesus.'
I especially like Barne's Commentary on that verse:
There is neither Jew nor Greek - All are on a level; all are saved in the same way; all are entitled to the same privileges. There is no favoritism on account of birth, beauty, or blood. All confess that they are sinners; all are saved by the merits of the same Saviour; all are admitted to the same privileges as children of God. The word "Greek" here is used to denote the Gentiles generally; since the whole world was divided by the Jews into "Jews and Greeks" - the Greeks being the foreign nation best known to them. The Syriac renders it here "Aramean," using the word to denote the Gentiles generally. The meaning is, that whatever was the birth, or rank, or nation, or color, or complexion, all under the gospel were on a level. They were admitted to the same privileges, and endowed with the same hopes of eternal life. This does not mean that all the civil distinctions among people are to be disregarded.
It does not mean that no respect is to be shown to those in office, or to people in elevated rank. It does not mean that all are on a level in regard to talents, comforts, or wealth; but it means only that all people are on a level "in regard to religion." This is the sole point under discussion; and the interpretation should be limited to this. It is not a fact that people are on a level in all things, nor is it a fact that the gospel designs to break down all the distinctions of society. Paul means to teach that no man has any preference or advantage in the kingdom of God because he is a rich man, or because he is of elevated rank; no one is under any disadvantage because he is poor, or because he is ignorant, or a slave. All at the foot of the cross are sinners; all at the communion table are saved by the same grace; all who enter into heaven, will enter clothed in the same robes of salvation, and arranged, not as princes and nobles, and rich men and poor men, in separate orders and ranks, but mingling together as redeemed by the same blood, and arranged in ranks according to their eminence in holiness; compare my notes at Isaiah 56:8.
There is neither bond nor free - The condition of a free man does not give him any special claims or advantages in regard to religion; and the condition of a slave does not exclude him from the hope of heaven, or from being regarded as a child of God, on the same terms, and entitled to the same privileges as his master. In regard to religion, they are on the same level. They are alike sinners, and are alike saved by grace. They sit down at the same communion table; and they look forward to the same heaven. Christianity does not admit the one to favor because he is free, or exclude the other because he is a slave. Nor, when they are admitted to favor, does it give the one a right to lord it over the other, or to feel that he is of any more value in the eye of the Redeemer, or any nearer to his heart. The essential idea is, that they are on a level, and that they are admitted to the favor of God without respect to their external condition in society. I do not see any evidence in this passage that the Christian religion designed to abolish slavery, any more than I do in the following phrase, "there is neither male nor female," that it was intended to abolish the distinction of the sexes; nor do I see in this passage any evidence that there should not be proper respect shown by the servant to his master, though both of them are Christians, any more than there is in the following phrase, that suitable respect should not be shown in the contact with the sexes; compare 1 Timothy 6:1-5. But the proof is explicit, that masters and slaves may alike become Christians on the same terms, and are, in regard to their religious privileges and hopes, on a level. No special favor is shown to the one, in the matter of salvation, because he is free, nor is the other excluded because he is a slave. And from this it follows:
(1) That they should sit down to the same communion table. There should be no invidious and odious distinctions there.
(2) they should be regarded alike as Christian brethren in the house of God, and should be addressed and treated accordingly.
You’re right of course; it is a bogus doctrine. What would be the point of inviting all manner of gentiles into a heretofore Jewish church, and then telling those gentiles that no, you have to segregate yourselves by skin color? Paul would have laughed.
I’m just saying that I’m not certain it has amounted to a fatal flaw with regard to salvation. The historical church is enough proof that God shows patience to a lot of guff, even inhumane guff. It isn’t literally infinite patience; an erring church will have to get right or fall apart.
I can deal with PC. It collapses with simple logical refutation. What is getting worse on FR is the gutter language that seems to be SOP for more and more posters.
Makes the board look juvenile.