Kentucky church bans interracial marriage

[John81]

Kentucky church bans interracial marriage


A small Kentucky church has chosen to ban marriages and even some worship services for interracial couples. The Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church, located in Pike County, made the vote in response to a longtime member who is engaged to a man whose birthplace is in Zimbabwe.
Other pastoral leaders in the area were quick to denounce the church's vote. "It's not the spirit of the community in any way, shape or form," Randy Johnson, president of the Pike County Ministerial Association, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.
The small congregation, which usually hosts about 40 members each Sunday, held the vote after longtime member Stella Harville, brought her fiancé Ticha Chikuni to church with her in June. The couple performed a song together at the church in which Chikuni sang "I Surrender All," while Harville played the piano.
Chikuni, 29, who works at Georgetown College, is black--and Harville, who was baptized at the church but is not an active member, is white. Dean Harville, Stella's father, said he was told by the church's former pastor Melvin Thompson that his daughter and her fiancé were not allowed to sing at the church again. However, Thompson recently stepped down and the church's new pastor, Stacy Stepp, said the couple was once again welcome to sing.
Stepp's decision prompted Thompson to put forth a recommendation saying that while all members are welcome at the church, it does not "condone" interracial marriage, and that any interracial couples would not be received as members or allowed to participate in worship services. The only exception? Funerals.
The Harville family has formally requested the congregation to reconsider the interracial ban, and Thompson has also said he would like to resolve the issue, the area CBS affiliate WYMT has reported.

A copy of the recommendation, obtained by WYMT, reads in part:

That the Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church does n

ot

condone i

nt

erracial marriage. Parties of such marriages will n

ot

be received as members, nor will they be used in worship services and

ot

her church functions, with the exception being funerals. All are welcome to our public worship services. This recommendation is n

ot

i

nt

ended to judge the salvation of anyone, but is i

nt

ended to prom

ot

e greater unity among the church body and the community we serve.

Members of the church held a vote on Thompson's proposed language, with nine voting in favor and six voting against. The other members in attendance chose not to vote.
Gawker notes that Pike County is 98 percent white and home to the infamous Hatfield-McCoy feud.
The Harville family doesn't see Gulnare's new policy promoting anything like unity or civil peace. "They're the people who are supposed to comfort me in times like these," Stella Harville said.
And Stella's father was much more forceful in his denunciation of the interracial ban. "It sure ain't Christian," Dean Harville said. "It ain't nothing but the old devil working."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-marriage-150009470.html

[JerryNumbers]

I read that, actually I am surprised more churches have not done that. Perhaps they have but the papers have not got hold of it.

[Anon]

Appalling and unBiblical.

[Covenanter]

InterRACIAL??? People are all ONE race, descended from Adam & Eve, through Noah.

[John81]

The only reason this is news is because it goes against the PC climate of today. It's a single church and whether anyone agrees or disagrees with their position, it's their business, not the publics. Now, if they were to take to the streets like the "God hates fags" church, then it would be public business.

From what's in the article, what they voted on only effects internal church matters.

[Anon]

John, you're right....but its still unBiblical for that church to make that decision. Doesn't affect me, doesn't matter, but their decision is not based on Bible.

[2Tim215]

John, you're right....but its still unBiblical for that church to make that decision. Doesn't affect me, doesn't matter, but their decision is not based on Bible.

I agree.

[no name joe]

This is terrible. So sad that a church who claims to love God is failing to love their neighbors as themselves.

[heartstrings]

The only reason this is news is because it goes against the PC climate of today. It's a single church and whether anyone agrees or disagrees with their position, it's their business, not the publics. Now, if they were to take to the streets like the "God hates fags" church, then it would be public business.

From what's in the article, what they voted on only effects internal church matters.

I disagree. It is the public's business because we are supposed to be the "light of the world" and just like people are watching your life and mine, they are watching the church; and rightly so.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matthew 5:16

God wasn't pleased with Miriam when she gave Moses a hard time about his Ethiopian wife and He hasn't changed. There is no love in Racisim, and when people look at the church and see that we don't really love people, we aren't letting our light shine. Edited December 2, 2011 by heartstrings

[OLD fashioned preacher]

The general public bases hate/love and right/wrong only on their biases and opinions. If this is the business of the general public then when a church doesn't allow a "gay" couple to join, won't allow a female music director, disallows a particular type of music as a church special, or doesn't allow certain attire in the church --- it won't be an agreement or disagreement with the Biblical validity of their decision, but rather a slandering as "haters" due to personal feelings.

I know a church where some of the members felt that the information concerning who gave how much (by name and figure) to missions should be posted on the bulletin board in the vestibule (visible to member and visitor alike) as "public financial responsibility".

[JerryNumbers]

The only reason this is news is because it goes against the PC climate of today. It's a single church and whether anyone agrees or disagrees with their position, it's their business, not the publics. Now, if they were to take to the streets like the "God hates fags" church, then it would be public business.

From what's in the article, what they voted on only effects internal church matters.

I agree. Its their right, they of that church are the ones to make decisions for their church.

Now, I am not taking up for them, but they know more about the situation of their church, what is best, than anyone outside of it. Its best not to 2nd guess a church's decision.

And I feel sure its in the paper because the one that wrote the article, as well as the papers owner, knows that will sell papers.

And of course, what takes place in Jesus' Churches, were ever they may be, during business meeting, is not the worlds business, it is that particular churches business.

And I feel it is wrong for anyone attending such a meeting to take that business outside of that church telling it to anyone & everyone. That is no what we are told to go & teach. That is private church matters. And because of people speaking about such matters outside of their church it has started much vicious gossip.

[no name joe]

_{As believers, it is the j}ob _{of churches to poi}nt _{out where an}ot<sub>her church is expressing a very unChristian attitude.

We work to keep churches from hiring gay pastors, etc. and are quick to take a stand against that. We should be equally quick to take a stance against a church who has adopted a</sub> very hateful attitude. such as this.

The purpose of taking a stance is not to be judgmental, but ot point out the error of the ways and bring them back to sound theology. It is not sound to ban interracial couples from participating in worship. Jesus ministered to the Samaritans, who were an interracial type people. God blessed Moses' marriage, which was an interracial marriage.

Why is this chruch trying to tear a marriage apart? Marriage is _{blessed by God. Divorce causes many negative consequences. A church that takes such as stance needs to be corrected. Yes it is their right to run things the way they wa}nt _{to, but when they do so in such a way that is so blate}nt_{ly outside of the Scripture, then they should expect} ot_{her churches to poi}nt _{that out. It is one thing to have differences where there is just a reasonable difference of i}nt_{erpretation of Scripture. It is an}ot_{her to do something that completely cuts against what Scripture teches.}

[heartstrings]

If a church consistently preaches AGAINST homosexuality as it should, I doubt very seriously that any sodomites will even want to join. Banning interracial couples and preventing a 'gay couple' from joining are two very different things because there is biblical basis for preaching against homosexuality; absolutely NONE for preaching against interracial marriage. If we're going to be persecuted and evil spoken of, let it be for righteousness sake. and not because we've backslid to the level of being like a bunch of proud Pharisees hating on "Samaritans".

[HappyChristian]

If a church consistently preaches AGAINST homosexuality as it should, I doubt very seriously that any sodomites will even want to join. Banning interracial couples and preventing a 'gay couple' from joining are two very different things because there is biblical basis for preaching against homosexuality; absolutely NONE for preaching against interracial marriage. If we're going to be persecuted and evil spoken of, let it be for righteousness sake. and not because we've backslid to the level of being like a bunch of proud Pharisees hating on "Samaritans".

:goodpost:

[John81]

While the media never covers it, there are many black churches across the land that preach against interracial marriage, dating, and a few even teach against interracial friendships.

In at least two of the black churches I visited in and around Chicago it was made clear to us (myself and two white friends) that we could stay, but we were not welcome.

Over the years I've personally heard about a dozen, probably close to 10-12, black pastors preach against blacks mixing with other races. I've read of and heard of a great many more.

In most cases, not only are they preaching against interracial marriage and mixing, but they also preach the superiority of the black race and how God will judge America for her sins against the black man by bringing him (whites) down low and putting blacks over them.

Why is this not national news and the business of the public at large? Because it would not be politically correct to challenge them on their views.

That said, while I don't agree with everything these black pastors preach or their churches hold to, I do believe it's their own business. Just as I wouldn't choose to attend a homosexual accepting Episcopal church, I would choose not to make any of these churches my home either. Meanwhile, there is obviously those who do want to attend such churches and that's their choice.