Being a mixed race family, I have seen such issues before. Never in church, though, and that is my biggest beef with this church. A church is supposed to love everyone. (If the issue of homosexuality is brought up by someone, they church is to love everyone regardless of their sin.) I sin, you sin, we all sin. That is why we all need God. To be a member of a church brings a higher standard than attendance. To be a member brings putting yourself under the authority of a church leader until reason is done to no longer be under that person's authority for cause.

I would consider this issue to be one that I would leave that specific church for cause

rickyp wrote:It's 'current affairs', and discrimination against mixed couples is a political.

The forum is "political discussion." Which political party is supporting this group?

Well, its at that unhappy convergence where for many, religion becomes the motivation and the justification for the expression of secular law.

Except this is not a law and no one is proposing this law. So, again, it's not political and it's not a legal issue(in that no one is trying to change a law). This belongs in some other forum.

Btw, how many people go to this "church?"

Steve, we've had plenty of religious topics here in the past, I fail to see your problem. Current affairs = politics in my book. While I don't have any interest in this particular topic, at the same time I don't see why every thread in this particular sub-forum has to be about Obama's re-election chances.

Right. So, if six people in Podunk do something ignorant, it's political.

Doctor Fate wrote:The forum is "political discussion." Which political party is supporting this group?

Except this is not a law and no one is proposing this law. So, again, it's not political and it's not a legal issue(in that no one is trying to change a law). This belongs in some other forum.

Politics is not simply about parties or laws. Laws come out of politics and are political issues. Parties emerge as political factions and are political. But politics means 'of the city', from the Greek times when cities were states. In today's English, it means things that concern society. Discrimination is, in my opinion, a political issue. It is a debate that we have had and will continue to have - what discrimination is unfair, what should 'we' (meaning people as much as the State) do about it if unfair, etc etc.

There have been laws, court cases and political debates about racial discrimination and also about mixed race marriage.

Btw, how many people go to this "church?"

If you read the linked report, you'd see it's about 40. It's a small church in a fairly rural part of Kentucky - up by the Appalachians. The story, however, has become international.

If you want to look less petty minded, you could do worse than read the stuff you are dismissing out of hand. If it had been Brad who started the thread (as he'd hinted he may have), would you have even bothered to get al upset about where it was? I notice that you only intervened after Brad and I had reached agreement. To try and stir up an argument at that point looks like what you call 'trolling'.

If you don't have an opinion on the issue of a church banning active participation from mixed race couples, you are free to ignore the thread entirely. If you do, by all means let us see it.

bbauska wrote:Being a mixed race family, I have seen such issues before. Never in church, though, and that is my biggest beef with this church. A church is supposed to love everyone. (If the issue of homosexuality is brought up by someone, they church is to love everyone regardless of their sin.) I sin, you sin, we all sin. That is why we all need God. To be a member of a church brings a higher standard than attendance. To be a member brings putting yourself under the authority of a church leader until reason is done to no longer be under that person's authority for cause.

It's a difficult one to call, I suppose - to decide as a church member whether the leadership has deviated from God's law or not.

I would consider this issue to be one that I would leave that specific church for cause[/quote]Which I think would be the normal reaction. In the case of the couple concerned the woman grew up in the church and her parents are active. I get the impression that they'd rather stay and hope to have the ban overturned. As I mentioned before, the current pastor opposed it and the previous pastor proposed it.

bbauska wrote:A church is supposed to love everyone.

So, Brad, what would you make of Matthew 18, when Jesus tells His followers to confront those who are in a pattern of sin, eventually kicking out those who will not repent ("treat him as a tax-gatherer and a Gentile")?

For example, how should a church "love" a husband who leaves his wife and moves in with another woman?

I would consider this issue to be one that I would leave that specific church for cause

Prejudice of the sort this church displayed does not come in a vacuum. The leadership did not pop up one morning and come to the conclusion that interracial marriage was wrong.

Again, this is not "biblical." It is also not political. It is also a tempest in a teapot.

Political or not, not a big deal. Interesting to talk about nonetheless.

As for Matthew 18, we have had this issue arise in my last church in VA. A man had an affair, would not stop it, and wanted to stay in the church. He was counseled by church leadership, given strict instructions about scripture and his expected commitment to the Lord's commands. When he chose not to follow the Lord's commands, he was asked to leave the church until he corrected his sin. To date (10 years) he has not, and has left 6 kids and an ex in his wake. Shameful...

The church should love those who are sin, but not accept the intentional disobedience of those who do sin.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/04/pastor-at-kentucky-church-to-void-ban-on-interracial-couples/

This should resolve this issue. I feel the issue was handled properly, and happy to see the vote was unanimous.

Interesting that Pastor Stepp referred to secular laws as a reason to invalidate. But a positive outcome, I hope we can all agree.

rickyp

Well, its at that unhappy convergence where for many, religion becomes the motivation and the justification for the expression of secular law

.

steve

Except this is not a law and no one is proposing this law. So, again, it's not political and it's not a legal issue(in that no one is trying to change a law). This belongs in some other forum.

The ban on their attendance was a law or rule... of the church. As tt was passed and expressed by a vote of the congregation.
And, as it happens, the Church inevitably recognized the secular laws

Stacy Stepp, pastor of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, told The Associated Press that the vote by nine people last week was declared null and void after it was determined that new bylaws can't run contrary to local, state or national laws. He said the proposal was discriminatory, therefore it couldn't be adopted

rickyp wrote:rickyp

Well, its at that unhappy convergence where for many, religion becomes the motivation and the justification for the expression of secular law

.

steve

Except this is not a law and no one is proposing this law. So, again, it's not political and it's not a legal issue(in that no one is trying to change a law). This belongs in some other forum.

The ban on their attendance was a law or rule... of the church. As tt was passed and expressed by a vote of the congregation.
And, as it happens, the Church inevitably recognized the secular laws

If you reached any further, your arm would separate from your shoulder.

Stacy Stepp, pastor of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, told The Associated Press that the vote by nine people last week was declared null and void after it was determined that new bylaws can't run contrary to local, state or national laws. He said the proposal was discriminatory, therefore it couldn't be adopted

Nine people? :lol:

Great topic--widely impactful.

And, it is not inevitable that a church will follow the law of the land. Watch what happens if/when the State tries to force churches to perform alternative marriages.

Neither I, nor Brad (and no-one else) has said that they think this is a significant issue due to the numbers involved. Just that it is of interest to discuss.

If someone wishes to not discuss it, then it's completely up to them. The fact that they are wilfully ignoring some of the posts and then as a result asking questions already answered just boggles the mind.

Perhaps you need another break, Steve?