Kentucky church bans interracial marriage

[Guest]

Is it right to show respect to one who does not show respect to saved believers by denying them the same rights just because of the color of their skin? Being South African I have seen the ugly side of both coins and I have also seen American IFB missionaries in MY country do the same because they hold the same beliefs as Bro Smith and others. All I know is this:

Act 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

And this

1Co 7:21 Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.
1Co 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant.
1Co 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

And this

Eph 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

God sees the color red, not the color black - He sees the blood of Christ not a mans skin.

I like your post, it makes sense because it is based on scripture. I don't understand a church basing faith or conduct on anything else.

[2Tim215]

Scripture says nowhere that Christians must be accepting of all who wish to marry or give our approval to all who wish to marry or are married. This extends to all marriage, not only with regards to the topic. Pastors/churches refuse to marry certain couples all the time based upon biblical matters as well as preferential matters. That's the local pastor/churches right.

The idea that a pastor/church must accept all who wish to marry, or are married, has no more biblical support than does the idea that virtually anything goes for weddings and pastors/churches are wrong to deny the use of certain music, slides, etc.

Couples have been shown disapproval for marriage for a myriad of reasons, with race being a small part of the whole.

Such matters are under the discretion of the local pastor/church. We are all free to attend the church we wish just as we are free to not attend any church we are not in agreement with.

No on has said that anyone be rejected from being presented the Gospel, from being accepted as a brother/sister in Christ, or prevented from attending church services. The only matters where the interracial couples were barred were in matters of special events that are at the discretion of each local pastor/church to determine.

I agree John, but a persons personal preference has no place in the church. And the use of scripture out of context to justify a persons personal preference is exactly what is wrong with churches these days. What type of witness would I be if I was a old pipe smoking baptist minister and said smoking was okay just because it was my personal preference? Or if I like a beer on Friday nights so it's okay to indulge in the occasional alcoholic beverage?

How dare we say: "Well okay, you can come sit in our pews and listen, but don't you think of joining in! Don't you dare think of doing anything special in our church for God!"

[no name joe]

^{I fail to comprehend how anyone can claim a marriage between beleivers, that is i}nt^{erracial, is a bad thing. What God has brought together let no man separate. How can a believer possibly denounce a marriage, make them feel inferior by exhibiting such an attitude, and claim to be a follower of Christ? in Jesus' day, people treated Samaritans as second rate citizens because they were mixed race. However, Jesus took the exact opposite attitude. He did n}ot ^{care about their race, or if races i}nt^{ermarried, he cared about their hearts and wa}nt^{ed what is best for them and their families. We should take the same possition. WHere two people have e}nt^{ered i}nt^{o a holy covena}nt <sup>of marriage, we, and teh church, should do everything in our power to uphold that institution and be supportive of marriage. We shoudl encourage couples to grow together. It is difficult enough without facing people or churches looking down on us or criticizing our relationship.

There is absolutely n</sup>ot^{hing unbiblical about marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of the race of the couple. To criticize such a relationship is, in fact, unbiblical. We should support a husband and wife in their goal to build a strong and enduring marriage. Saying a couple cann}ot ^{participate in a worship service is encouraging the dissolution of a marriage, and pr}ob^{lems for a relationship of a couple who have taken holy vows to remain faithful to one an}ot^her.

[heartstrings]

It is obvious that some have reacted rather negatively (and violently) to my comments about interracial marriage. There are others that see it as it is: a local church issue and nothing more. I thank those who have come to my defense.

I read the Fox News article about the Kentucky church changing its position in the matter. It would appear that the church rescinded its vote in the matter due to denominational pressure and public outcry. I would like to say that I have been against interracial marriage for many years and, as a pastor, I personally refuse to bow the knee to public opinion.

The subject of Moses and the Ethiopian woman has been brought up as "proof" that God accepts interracial marriage. Let's see: The children of Israel were in Egypt for hundreds of years. Moses was born in Egypt and raised as an Egyptian. Both Ethiopia and Egypt are in Africa. Both obviously could rightly be called Africans. So where is the interracial marriage?

They were guilty of fault finding and nitpicking. God defended Moses on the basis that he was chosen by God to be the leader of the nation of Israel. By the way, is it not possible that the Ethiopian woman was a descendant of migrants and that her ancestory was actually of middle eastern descent (which would make her a Shemite)? I think it would be good to look into that possibility.

Nobody has reacted violently, sir. Actually, you don't seem to have any compunctions about making accusations but now you even accuse others of "violence" when they reprove you. ,.Has anyone threatened you?

Why did Miriam and Aaron speak out against Moses? It was because they were jealous of his leadership position.

The Bible says they did it "because of the Ehiopian woman". Numbers 12: ¹And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

By the way, is it not possible that the Ethiopian woman was a descendant of migrants and that her ancestory was actually of middle eastern descent (which would make her a Shemite)?

The Bible says she was an "Ethiopian woman". I am not a genius but even I can understand simple things. Why do you insist on making her into something else.

Did the Holy Ghost forget to add a qualification for service in your Bible?
Titus 1: ⁶If any be blameless, the husband of one wife of his own race, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
⁷For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
⁸But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
⁹Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

1 Timothy 3:¹This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
²A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife of his own race, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
³Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
⁴One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
⁵(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
⁶Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
⁷Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

If a mixed race couple is not permitted to participate in a "White" church then is it right for them to participate in a "Black" one? Would it be any more pleasing to God if they divorced than it would be for a "conventional" same-race marriage? If a black man, say, marries a white woman and later gets saved, is that man disqualified to preach according to Titus i and i Timothy 3? If not, who could he preach to? Once again, the Ethiopian woman was simply an "Ethiopian" and the Bible says that an "Ethiopian" had some kind of remarkable skin. Wonder what it was? Does skin really matter?

[Salyan]

If your going to be consistent and if you're categorically apposed to such things on the grounds "God did not intend mankind to be united as one", and if you're going to use the tower of babel as evidence, then logically I would think you would be apposed to learning other languages as well. After all God confused the languages at the tower of babel precisely to create division. Also if you're going to use Acts 17:26 as some type of evidence then logically you should be opposed to marrying someone from a different country regardless of the race they were of, and within the same country it also would not matter what race they were of. The verse is talking about God setting the bounds of nations not races after all. So no English/German, American/Canadian marriages either.

Right on, Seth. It was the languages that God confused at Babel, not the skin colors. If He did not intend for people to ever mix together again based on that event, why would He give the apostles the ability to speak in various tongues at Pentecost? Or send His disciples to preach the Gospel to all people (which must require some translation of languages)? Or even allow the Bible to be scribed in three different tongues – Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? I hope, Br. Smith, that you don't use an English KJV, because the very existance of such a publication must be in opposition to your views on God's division of the nations.

The subject of Moses and the Ethiopian woman has been brought up as "proof" that God accepts interracial marriage. Let's see: The children of Israel were in Egypt for hundreds of years. Moses was born in Egypt and raised as an Egyptian. Both Ethiopia and Egypt are in Africa. Both obviously could rightly be called Africans. So where is the interracial marriage?

By that definition, you should have no problem marrying inter-racial couples, just so long as both their ancestors have been in the US for at least a couple hundred years.

[Salyan]

This is a local church matter that we don't have to agree or disagree with.

Maybe not, but such a stance is more than likely based on a wrong understanding/application of Scripture. And that is something that we as Christians should be concerned about.

[John81]

BroSmith did say he is against interracial couples serving in his church. I assume that means if a white man married a black woman, both born again Christians and faithful, he would not allow them to teach Sunday School or usher.

If this is true....its not Bible. True, its his own decision...and its his own church....I'm just saying...he has no Bible for this position.

I know a foreign white/black couple who were dedicated underground Christians and they fasted and prayed along with their families for 3 days before marrying each other. I wonder how many of us fasted and prayed for three days solid, with our family, before getting married? There would probably be a lot less divorce if we did.

I don't recall Bro Smith's post well enough to remember exactly what he said. Like you say, the local pastor/church is free to make decisions on who can and can't serve in the church. While what the Bible says should certainly be followed, beyond that there is room for variation and many churches vary in their rules for who can/can/t teach Sunday school (sticking with your example). Some church only allow women SS teachers, some churches don't allow women SS teachers, some require only married women teach, some have age requirements, years in the Lord requirements, time as member of church, etc.

No doubt everyone would do well to be in the Word, prayer and fasting with regards to relationships, including marriage.

[John81]

I agree John, but a persons personal preference has no place in the church. And the use of scripture out of context to justify a persons personal preference is exactly what is wrong with churches these days. What type of witness would I be if I was a old pipe smoking baptist minister and said smoking was okay just because it was my personal preference? Or if I like a beer on Friday nights so it's okay to indulge in the occasional alcoholic beverage?

How dare we say: "Well okay, you can come sit in our pews and listen, but don't you think of joining in! Don't you dare think of doing anything special in our church for God!"

Again, various churches have various rules that are more preference based than anything. Scripture doesn't speak against such. A church could keep to the biblical standards for church matters as well as have their own rules, which most churches do. Some churches have rather restrictive rules for membership, others have very liberal rules, and we have everything in between. If Scripture doesn't speak directly against a rule, who are we to declare a pastor/church is wrong for having a certain rule?

Does Scripture address whether a mixed race couple must or must not be accepted as a local church member or be able to sing songs there in a performance? Does Scripture speak to drinking beer?

We don't have to agree with all the rules of every church, and most of us likely wouldn't. Are we to go around to every church and tell them they must be rid of every rule that we don't like or that we don't see a direct Scripture verse to support?

It's very easy not to attend a church we don't agree with.

[JerryNumbers]

Scripture says nowhere that Christians must be accepting of all who wish to marry or give our approval to all who wish to marry or are married. This extends to all marriage, not only with regards to the topic. Pastors/churches refuse to marry certain couples all the time based upon biblical matters as well as preferential matters. That's the local pastor/churches right.

The idea that a pastor/church must accept all who wish to marry, or are married, has no more biblical support than does the idea that virtually anything goes for weddings and pastors/churches are wrong to deny the use of certain music, slides, etc.

Couples have been shown disapproval for marriage for a myriad of reasons, with race being a small part of the whole.

Such matters are under the discretion of the local pastor/church. We are all free to attend the church we wish just as we are free to not attend any church we are not in agreement with.

No on has said that anyone be rejected from being presented the Gospel, from being accepted as a brother/sister in Christ, or prevented from attending church services. The only matters where the interracial couples were barred were in matters of special events that are at the discretion of each local pastor/church to determine.

Of course, since this topic was started, they have changed their path.

That said we might do good not to comment on that indent, & many other things, until we have all relevant information. We have no idea what may have took place in that church that caused them to do what they did.

And of course that was not covered in the news article. The facts are always important, especially when condemning others.

We are in a day when even Christians are ready to jump on the bandwagon & throwing people, even churches, under the bus, when they do not have all of the facts. That is they do not have the rest of the story.

[SarahStrawberry]

Wow. This has all been a very interesting read and there are many, many things with which I would love to argue but arguing doesn't do any good and I don't feel leave from the Lord to address all of the issues that have bothered me in this topic except to make one point.
I might not be a Bible scholar but I have been raised under good, Biblical, stomp on your toes and challenge your life preaching for most of my life as well as having read the Bible many times myself and the only stipulations that I see the Lord making on who we can marry are Spiritual stipulations, not physical. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" II Corinthians 6:14-16 This whole passage, which is the most famous passage on "who to marry", speaks only of spiritual issues. Unbelievers, righteousness and unrighteousness, and light and darkness. Yes, you can speak of righteousness in physical terms (such as beliefs, doctrines, etc) but those all start in a Spiritual place. A persons color has nothing to do with their Spiritual state therefore a persons color has nothing to do with who can marry who.
I don't want to belabor an obvious point so I'm going to close this now before I start going on and on. Thanks for letting me share my 2 cents.

[John81]

Wow. This has all been a very interesting read and there are many, many things with which I would love to argue but arguing doesn't do any good and I don't feel leave from the Lord to address all of the issues that have bothered me in this topic except to make one point.
I might not be a Bible scholar but I have been raised under good, Biblical, stomp on your toes and challenge your life preaching for most of my life as well as having read the Bible many times myself and the only stipulations that I see the Lord making on who we can marry are Spiritual stipulations, not physical. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" II Corinthians 6:14-16 This whole passage, which is the most famous passage on "who to marry", speaks only of spiritual issues. Unbelievers, righteousness and unrighteousness, and light and darkness. Yes, you can speak of righteousness in physical terms (such as beliefs, doctrines, etc) but those all start in a Spiritual place. A persons color has nothing to do with their Spiritual state therefore a persons color has nothing to do with who can marry who.
I don't want to belabor an obvious point so I'm going to close this now before I start going on and on. Thanks for letting me share my 2 cents.

What you say is right. Yet the fact is churches establish their own rules on who they will or won't marry and those rules are not only based upon Scripture. I've not heard anyone saying interracials can't marry, only that certain pastors/churches won't perform the weddings. There is a difference. If the First Church of Pine Bluff refuses to marry interracials one can go down the street to the First Church of Oak Street and get married.

Right or wrong, local churches have the authority to determine who they will or won't marry. Some churches won't marry couples who are not members of their church, or those who haven't gone through certain counseling, or those who are not of that churches denomination, or simply because the pastor doesn't want to.

BTW: Great to see you!

[JerryNumbers]

Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And of course each local church is the authority, we are nothing like the RCC, & of course the RCC is nothing like the local churches within the pages of the Bible.

I feel sure someone from up north, that comes south, would disagree with several things that many of the local churches hold to.

And the same thing would be true of someone from the south that goes north.

And probably many churches up north would have nothing to do with me, that is OK with me, I was not called by God to pastor in the north. And the churches in the south probably;y would not be accepting of man pastors from the north, that's OK, for they were not called by God in the south.

[rancher824]

Of course, since this topic was started, they have changed their path.

That said we might do good not to comment on that indent, & many other things, until we have all relevant information. We have no idea what may have took place in that church that caused them to do what they did.

And of course that was not covered in the news article. The facts are always important, especially when condemning others.

We are in a day when even Christians are ready to jump on the bandwagon & throwing people, even churches, under the bus, when they do not have all of the facts. That is they do not have the rest of the story.

This post is interesting in light of the Herman Cain topic. Some are for throwing Herman Cain under the bus because he put himself in a place most of us would not, but not in a place that was sinful.

The thing that jumps at me about this is not whether the church will marry inter-racial couples. It is not whether they will allow inter-racial couples to preform special or teach a class. It is that they would not allow them to be members. Now John is correct it is not our place to try to change them. We have no authority over them. But I have not seen anyone saying we should. I have seen some saying they are acting very unchristian. But we do that about a lot of things. I see no difference here. We have a right to warn others when we have knowledge of a "church" that has pharisitical rules. So is what I would say about this church even though they rescinded it. We also have a tendancy to say if you do not like it, just go somewhere else. But let's consider this for a moment. A couple grow up lost with no christian people in their lives. The meet and get married. They are inter-racial. Two years later they become saved. How is not important, whether from hearing over the radio or perhaps they just decided to attend a revival, but as I said, it is unimportant. They have became saved. In their area there are very few churches. The only one that is even correct on salvation has a rule against having members who are inter-racial. Now I think most if not all of us agree that the Lord expects us to be members of a local New Testament church. What are they to do? Divorce? Start a house church even though they know very little scripture? What are they to do??

[John81]

Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And of course each local church is the authority, we are nothing like the RCC, & of course the RCC is nothing like the local churches within the pages of the Bible.

I feel sure someone from up north, that comes south, would disagree with several things that many of the local churches hold to.

And the same thing would be true of someone from the south that goes north.

And probably many churches up north would have nothing to do with me, that is OK with me, I was not called by God to pastor in the north. And the churches in the south probably;y would not be accepting of man pastors from the north, that's OK, for they were not called by God in the south.

As far as segregated churches and churches that were very race conscious, the most I've seen were in and around Chicago, not in the South.

There are black churches, white churches, hispanic churches and others throughout the country. In some cities there are Japanese churches, Russian churches, etc. Most of these are this way based upon preference, comfortableness, and cultural aspects which are a part of preference, and for some language is a reason and few hold to some ethnic traditions.

Most of the black churches and white churches I'm familiar with in the South are like that mostly because of cultural preferences with regards to music and preaching styles. Most in Chicago are segregated because of race and it's preached in many of the black churches in and around Chicago. For all its "diversity" Chicago is one of the most segregated and racially minded cities in the country.

At the same time, there are plenty of mixed congregations throughout the land. Whatever a person is looking for in a church, they can probably find.

I praise God for those churches where Christ is preached regardless of their racial make-up or policies. For those that don't preach Christ, that's the major concern, not the race of the members or their racial views.

[John81]

This post is interesting in light of the Herman Cain topic. Some are for throwing Herman Cain under the bus because he put himself in a place most of us would not, but not in a place that was sinful.

The thing that jumps at me about this is not whether the church will marry inter-racial couples. It is not whether they will allow inter-racial couples to preform special or teach a class. It is that they would not allow them to be members. Now John is correct it is not our place to try to change them. We have no authority over them. But I have not seen anyone saying we should. I have seen some saying they are acting very unchristian. But we do that about a lot of things. I see no difference here. We have a right to warn others when we have knowledge of a "church" that has pharisitical rules. So is what I would say about this church even though they rescinded it. We also have a tendancy to say if you do not like it, just go somewhere else. But let's consider this for a moment. A couple grow up lost with no christian people in their lives. The meet and get married. They are inter-racial. Two years later they become saved. How is not important, whether from hearing over the radio or perhaps they just decided to attend a revival, but as I said, it is unimportant. They have became saved. In their area there are very few churches. The only one that is even correct on salvation has a rule against having members who are inter-racial. Now I think most if not all of us agree that the Lord expects us to be members of a local New Testament church. What are they to do? Divorce? Start a house church even though they know very little scripture? What are they to do??

There are many churches across the land who won't accept people as members for various reasons and not all of them are outright biblical. In such cases a person, couple or family must pray, trust God and search elsewhere.

When I was looking for a new church home for us I checked out an IFB church that's located out in the country, many miles from here and a few miles from a small town. The pastor was clear that we could attend the church but he wasn't interested in taking on new members and didn't really seem too interested in having new attendees either. His reason seemed to be because he liked that the congregation was old and wanted to keep it that way. Other than that it seemed to be a biblically solid church, but I kept praying and looked elsewhere.

I know of a Japanese Christian in America that wasn't accepted in a Korean church here in America. The Koreans in that church still hold animosity towards the Japanese because of things that happened back when Japan ruled over Korea. He had to look elsewhere.