A church belonging to the Free Will Baptists sect has banned mixed-race couples from attending.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/de ... al-couples

Shameful. I hope that this is overturned, given the circumstances, but it's disappointing that it was even mooted, frankly.

I was going to post on this yesterday, but work precluded that posting. I find this church's actions reprehensible, and it certainly will be challenged both legally and spiritually.

"All will be called to answer for their actions at the time of Judgement"

The rule was sought by the (recent) ex-pastor and opposed by the current pastor. Perhaps the change in leadership was part of the dispute caused by objections to the couple involved. Perhaps it's really a part of wider divisions in that church based on personal rivalries and emnity.

I doubt that it's sincerely based on a reading of scripture or on a theological point of principle.

I wonder how they'd feel about two white men marrying?

I would think they would have a problem with it based upon scriptural texts that the church is based upon.

I compare it to praying to Allah (which is also forbidden in the Bible)

bbauska wrote:I compare it to praying to Allah (which is also forbidden in the Bible)

Not explicitly, though surely? Given that Allah means 'The God', and is narratively the same diety as YHWH and the God of Christ, I'm not sure that it definitely is forbidden, anyway.

I won't argue scripture with you, Owen. IMO this church is forbidding something not forbidden. RickyP brings up some instance that IS forbidden.

The Bible does say not to worship false gods.

bbauska wrote:The Bible does say not to worship false gods.

Owen's argument is that Allah is not a false god. Allah is the same as Yahweh/God. It is my understanding Islam recognizes both Moses and Jesus as prophets of Allah. Therefore, a Christian praying to God is praying to Allah. Therefore, your analogy would be incorrect.

I guess Owen and I disagree with each other then.

My point is that 'Allah' is just Arabic for the English 'God', in the same way that 'Deus' is Latin and that not one of those is a language of the Bible (Greek and earlier Aramaic / Hebrew).

Arab Christians do pray to 'Allah', and did so for centuries before Mohammed came along. Some have in recent times converted to Protestant sects, but presumably are allowed to retain their own language for liturgy.

Now the interpretation of what that god is does vary, although the Islamic deity is clearly the same as the god of Abraham. This raises the question of whether Allah is not a 'false god' at all, but rather the true god being misunderstood. In the early centuries of Christianity there were many sects and traditions that worshipped the same God, even if they had a divergence of opinion on the nature of that God, what texts made up the scripture and how to worship. The last of these has been the main difference between today's surviving major Christian sects, but the Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Gnostics, Marcionites, Montanites etc etc all were (and some still are) worshipping the god of Christ, but in a more diverse way, and in some cases with a different view of what 'God' is, and so are regarded as heretics by the Chalcedonians.

The bar you mean is the one on false teaching, not false gods. Even then, it seems to be more about the assertion that Mohammed is a prophet.

Ricky was, of course, being facetious on gay marriage.

Again, Agreed

Archduke Russell John wrote:

bbauska wrote:The Bible does say not to worship false gods.

Owen's argument is that Allah is not a false god. Allah is the same as Yahweh/God. It is my understanding Islam recognizes both Moses and Jesus as prophets of Allah. Therefore, a Christian praying to God is praying to Allah. Therefore, your analogy would be incorrect.

1. How is this in any way "political?"

2. The Archduke is incorrect. A Christian prays to a God who is Triune. Allah is not. A Christian prays to God, who sent His Son, also God, to take on an additional nature, live a perfect life, die a sacrificial death in place of sinners, and to be raised on the third day. Islam does not acknowledge Jesus as God and does not acknowledge the Holy Spirit as God.

3. How is any of this "political?"

4. I would apologize for commenting without reading a single word of Owen's, but since he is regularly trolling and even starting a thread on religion in the political forum, I could not be bothered.

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

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

Well, its at that unhappy convergence where for many, religion becomes the motivation and the justification for the expression of secular law.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of the Free Will group. On the one hand, I don't believe that we should force a religion to accept standards of behaviour within their chruch. (With exceptions for physically harming members).
On the other hand, I can't understand why the mixed race couple would want to continue to attend a church that can't abide their love for one another?
Surely intolerant sects that thrive on excluson and discrimination are doomed to whither over time, and those who accept others are bound to grow? Indeed thats a lesson of the early Christian Church, where the followers of James and Peter in The Way ended up eradicated as a small Jewish sect in 70 AD but Pauls inclusive Christianity, accepting pagans into the fold grew and prospered.
I mean, you can't find a Shaker today can you??

Ricky, I have not (and do not) advocate the State telling this church that they should accept a mixed-race couple for involvement. But I do think that it was a shameful thing to have been mooted (let alone passed by a vote). What should happen is that the pastor - who opposed it - should impress upon his congregation how there are no scriptural bases for such a ban and ask them to reconsider, and if not, then the church's national body should be acting.

Steve's obstinacy on even reading my words (he was earlier, just not 'directly' responding to them) means that I think he's missed the whole point. He's correct that 'Christians' believe in the trinity. That is the Chalcedonian position. Of course, at the time of Chalcedon (451 AD) there was a lot of debate over the nature of Christ's divinity and humanity and the relationship with that of God. But Chalcedon is pretty much the last point of agreement between the three largest Christian traditions (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox). But there were other sects that had a different view. They were largely repressed, or happened to be stronger in areas later taken over by the Islamic explosion, and so tend to be disregarded.

By the way, there was a missing word at the end of my previous post. I means that discrimination between mixed couples is a political issue. It's also one close to my heart.