Wednesday, June 06, 2007

What A Mix!

Well, since there is not much to be discussed concerning Big 10 football (sorry, Anoetos, but we all know the Big 12 is better!), I decided to use Leland's comments and see what everyone else thought. So here is the first of a few posts that actually came from "y'all"!

Leland asked:
Should people of different races worship together in the same church? Is it wrong for two believers of different ethnicities to marry?

In many places, this is a very divisive issue. What do you think the Word of God says about such a mixing of races?
Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh boy. This has been a BIG topic of discussion in our family lately.

Well, first of all, our local churches should reflect our communities (and by communities, I mean the demographic/town/area of city) around us. If they don't, we're not doing something right. Period. I know that in E. Texas many really struggle with that, but it is nothing more than prideful sinful ugliness that makes it a struggle.

And as far as marrying outside of one's "race"... GIVE ME A BREAK. There is no such thing as "race" anymore. The NT clearly establishes that spiritually, and quite frankly, just living in America makes that impossible.

And y'all should take a look at my blog from yesterday.

8:49 AM
Anonymous said...

I find it amazing that the same people who believe the food laws have been set aside because Paul wrote, "All creatures are to be received with thanksgiving," are the same ones who use Old Testament passages to justify their views on segregation, and disdain marriages between two people of different ethnicities, even though Paul wrote that there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, that we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Leland Acker

1:49 PM
Philip said...

Currently, the terms "Formula One race" and "World Championship race" are effectively synonymous; since 1984, every Formula One race has counted towards the World Championship, and every World Championship race has been to Formula One regulations. But the two terms are not interchangeable. Consider that:

the first Formula One race was held in 1947, whereas the World Championship did not start until 1950.
in the 1950s and 1960s, there were many Formula One races which did not count for the World Championship (e.g., in 1950, a total of 22 Formula One races were held, of which only 6 counted towards the World Championship). The number of non-championship Formula One events decreased throughout the 1970s and 1980s, to the point where the last non-championship Formula One race was held in 1983.
the World Championship was not always exclusively composed of Formula One events:
The World Championship was originally established as the World Championship for Drivers, i.e., without the term "Formula One" in the title. It only officially became the Formula One World Championship in 1981.
From 1950 to 1960, the Indianapolis 500 counted towards the World Championship. This race was run to AAA/USAC regulations, rather than to Formula One regulations.
From 1952 to 1953, all races counting towards the World Championship (except the Indianapolis 500) were run to Formula Two regulations. Note that Formula One was not "changed to Formula Two" during this period; the Formula One regulations remained the same, and numerous Formula One races were staged during this time.
The distinction is most relevant when considering career summaries and "all time lists". For example, in the List of Formula One drivers, Clemente Biondetti is shown with 1 race against his name. Biondetti actually competed in 4 Formula One races in 1950, but only one of these counted for the World Championship. Similarly, several Indy 500 winners technically won their first world championship race, though most record books choose to ignore this and instead only record regular participants.
-Wikkepedia. Word to ya mutha ("tell your mom I said "hi"")

8:22 PM
Philip said...

You're gonna block all my comments now, aren't you?

8:23 PM
Bro. Matt said...

Yes...

8:52 AM
Bro. Matt said...

Former pastors (they will remain nameless in order to protect them) have told me that "white" churches in Louisiana would shut a worship service down if a "black" person walked through the doors. Now, I'm not saying this still happens at those churches, but the point is, it should have NEVER happened to begin with. The last time I checked, it was the LORD'S church, not ours. He died for all men - red, yellow, black, and white (all other colors too!). God does not discriminate according to color and neither should we.

Do I think that interracial marriages are unscriptural? No. I think marriages between a believer and an unbeliever are unscriptural.

Do I think interracial marriages face harder criticism, etc.? Yes. I think both parties should earnestly pray about their decision, for it will not only affect them, but their children and extended family as well. However, if they feel God is happy with their future union, then who am I say any differently? And yes, I know most of the problems they face are cultural, but it is something to think about. Whether or not to marry is still their decision, but like all unions, the parties should be aware of the consequences of their actions.

Personally, I have some very good friends who are an "interracial couple". They have been married for about 7 years (somewhere in there!), and they are truly wonderful people. Now, we have discussed this issue before and, they know where I stand. And here is where I stand. Personally, I have no attraction to black females (nor really to those of Asian or Hispanic descent). I'm not sure why, but I pretty much stick with "white" girls (You know what I mean...I'm married, so don't think I go around flirting and dating all the time. I'm just trying to make a point here!). However, that is just my OPINION. Yours may differ and that is fine with me. Besides, I don't like onions and my wife, Jennifer, does. So who's right? Neither. It's just personal taste! (Okay, I know she's right because she's my wife, but for the sake of the argument go with me.)

12:04 PM
Anonymous said...

Galatians 3:28- There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Acts 10:34- Then Peter opened his mouth and said, "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respector of persons."

ROmans 2:11- For there is no respect of persons with God.

ROmans 3:9- What then, are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.

and the biggie:

John 10:16- Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be ONE FOLD and ONE SHEPHERD. (all caps added).

I don't see how anyone can justfiy segregated congregations with these passages in mind.

FUrthermore, if we "are all one in Christ Jesus," then inter-ethnical marriage is not a sin.

I believe ending a service when someone of color walks in is a sin. It is a transgression of the commandment to "teach all nations."

"REd and Yellow Black and White, they are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

Leland Acker

6:41 PM
Anonymous said...

Leland, did Jesus say that last part?

;)

8:22 PM
Anonymous said...

LOL, no. It's a childrens' song we teach in VBS...though I suspect most churches don't really mean it...which is ironic.

Leland Acker

9:37 PM
Anonymous said...

(he doesn't know i can be sarcastic, too)

9:44 PM
Anonymous said...

It's official! I have no sense of humor!

Leland Acker

9:59 PM
Bro. Matt said...

Leland,

You may not have a sense of humor...but you know how to be cruel! (all those crazy baylor comments!)

10:38 PM
Anonymous said...

Baylor fans are hilarious. My play-by-play partner gave me tickets to last year's Baylor vs. Northwestern (La) game. Northwestern gave Baylor everything they wanted. The fans sitting around us were watching the scores, and noticing how Nebraska was beating Nichols St. 55-0.

"You see, that's what you're supposed to do with these Southland Conference schools," one guy said.

However, getting to cover TAMU vs. Nebraska from the sidelines made me fall in love with Aggie football. WHat can you say about a school that even has the visiting Nebraska fans singing the Aggie fight song between quarters?

Favorite quote from the A&M game was an exchange that took place on a shuttle bus en route to Kyle Field. Everyone on the bus was wearing and A&M shirt when a guy wearing a Nebraska shirt stepped onto the bus. One of the kind Aggies spoke up and said, "Um, sir, there appears to be a problem with your attire."

The other funny quote came from my wife when we entered the field from behind the Aggie bench. Observing the 80,000+ fans, she said, "We're gonna die!"

And you don't even want to know about the ESPN sideline reporter.

Leland Acker

2:04 AM
Anonymous said...

That's the fun of being a bi-vocational pastor. If you find a fun second job, it can be a blessing. In addition to writing a Bible-centered column every week, I have gotten to:

-Watch the Aggies from the sideline of Kyle Field.

-Attend a luncheon with Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. (I ambushed him for an interview afterwards).

-Interview congressman Jeb Hensarling.

-Interviewed State Rep. Hopson several times.

-Broadcasted high school football playoff games from state-of-the-art facilities at SFA and Corsicana.

-Currently getting to watch the filming of a future blockbuster movie.

-get paid to watch sports.

-free admission to the Save the State Railroad fundraiser...interviewed Lee Roy Parnell.

I would trade it all in if I could minister full-time. But until then, God has at least blessed me with a job that has its fun moments. It's better than construction.

The only downside is that I am constantly choosing between being a good employee, a good pastor, or a good father/husband.

Leland Acker

2:17 AM
Anonymous said...

The problem isn't accepting the idea that race should not be a matter of concern. The problem now is.......we let anyone come to our churches but do we really let them be a part of our churches. In other words are we ok with letting our daughters marry people of different ethnic background?

9:29 AM
Anonymous said...

In my family, we actually are more concerned with the idea of our daughter growing up to marry a non-believer. If she grew up to marry a good Christian man who was black, we'd be tickled.

That's another thing that amazes me. Some will condone a marriage between a white believer and a white non-believer, while disdaining the marriage of two believers of different ethnicities.

Leland

12:32 PM
Bro. Matt said...

Anon, you wrote:

"The problem isn't accepting the idea that race should not be a matter of concern. The problem now is.......we let anyone come to our churches but do we really let them be a part of our churches. In other words are we ok with letting our daughters marry people of different ethnic background?"

That is a very good point. I was fortunate to have the preacher friend of mine (I referred to him a few posts earlier) come and preach at our church. I asked the men what they thought before he came, and they said, "Well, it's fine with us." Now, I'm not saying everyone in my congregation is perfect, but I do think we have come a long way. But yes, the point you made is probably the next big hurdle for our culture.

1:32 PM
Anonymous said...

Hey Matt, how about posting something controversial once in a while (j/k)? Just wanted to stop by and say hello. Bro. Bobby (aka ruins)

3:08 AM
studymore said...

I am going to be bold here... because I like to get in trouble. I am not sure if the Lord's churches should be accepting letters from those who preach a form of racism. I would really have to question whether I should accept a letter from any church that will not allow a black person to join.

Now, before you guys think I am crazy, think about this: the New Testament is very clear on this subject. There are many verses that indicate that the early Christians preached a form of Christianity that included everyone as sinners, and invited all to repentance. There is more in the scriptures against racism than there is against the universal, invisible Church.

Frankly, I feel it to be a matter of inconsistency to accept letters from racist, and deny letters from right-thinking, loving, conservative Southern Baptists whose only evil is the heresy of the univsersal Church. Which is more evil? Why should I fellowship with those who deny the preaching of the gospel to certain based on the color of their skin? What Baptist outside of the United States in the last two centuries would have allowed such a heresy to develop?

When we really sit down and examine what it means to be Baptists, we should preach against, repudiate, and quit fellowshipping with racist churches. Now I know that we would lose churches in Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana, but I believe that we should rid ourselves of the dead weight of racism so that we can be more effective in overall evangelism.

7:05 PM
Anonymous said...

...whose only evil is the heresy of the univsersal Church. Which is more evil? Why should I fellowship with those who deny the preaching of the gospel to certain based on the color of their skin?

Oh boy.

9:35 AM
Philip said...

Amen, studymore.
Just remember, culturally, this is a much different battle to fight for us in the South than for the Left, uh, West Coast.
Notice I said "different" not "harder." This is a problem everywhere. I've lived out west, and while racism is evident, it's different. It's also dealt with differently. We fight these battles as best we can where we are, as they are.
BTW, from what I've encountered, universalism is "universally" accepted out west. I think it's more of a battle for studymore than for us. We encounter it, but it's a "known" debate. My experience out west was that it is such an accepted teaching that virtually no one I spoke with was even aware of such a concept as "localism." Just speaking of MY experience.
Your results my vary. No warranty or guarantee is implied or expressed. Use only as directed. Keep out of reach of children. If symptoms persist for more than 3 (three) days, call your physician immediately.

10:40 AM
Anonymous said...

Let me clarify my sighs.

Universal Church /= Everyone is saved.

Universal Church = All the saved: past, present, future

11:13 AM
studymore said...

Philip, I understand what you are saying, and I am glad we are in agreement.

Here's the deal though, I spent most of my life "in the South." I was ordained by a church in Arkansas, graduated from high school in East Texas. When I was in East Texas, I invited my best friend to my Southern Baptist church, and I was told by the other youth I had messed up because I had invited a "black boy."

When I was in Arkansas years later, I knew a very respectable black lady who was struggling with Mormonism. I invited her to an ABA church there. I was told by the pastor that the black people have their own churches. I asked him if he knew of a black Landmark Baptist Church in the area that I could invite her to. He did not.... so I picked her up and took her to the only church that would welcome her (2.5 hours away!) Today, she is Mormon. And that black boy I invited to church when I was kid is now a gay activist.

So, guys, I don't care about what battles we should or should not face off. The fact is that these racists are helping to send a generation of potential Christian soldiers to a sinner's hell. Whether you are a black man in the South, or a black man in the West, your blood still runs red, and your soul was still breathed by God.

Today, these racists still adversely affect my ability to minister. When one of the youth at church tells me he is going to visit Louisiana or Arkansas, I actually pray that he does not end up in a racist church. Many of our kids at church are not white, and the last thing they need is some bigot who calls himself a "Missionary Baptist" shutting down services over the color of my church member's skin.

4:53 PM
studymore said...

Stephanie,

I am still not sure why you are sighing... I am pretty dense and everything. I know I missed something. Maybe I didn't... who knows?

4:59 PM
Philip said...

It's really scary to think how the leadership of those "churches" will answer to God for their conduct.

10:36 PM
Anonymous said...

I quoted too much of what you said, study. I meant only to reference your incredible assertion that the SBC is heretical, and that the 'Church Universal' is also heresy. Very broad, very unqualified, very wrong accusations.

11:35 PM
studymore said...

clmNot all churches in the SBC are heretical. Most are. It is common practice in the SBC to accept alien immersion, practice pulpit affiliation, and endorse intercommunion between Baptists and PedoBaptists. Orthodox Baptists have always considered these things heresy. And this is why I received Baptist baptism at the hands of a scriptural Baptist pastor in 1996, after my dunking at an SBC church some ten years before.

There have been recent moves towards a more scriptural SBC. I applaud the efforts of folks like Ben Stratton and others looking for an SBC than hold to scriptural Baptist doctrine. But, the majority still rules, and at least since 1963, they have been more Protestant than Baptist.

As a former member of an SBC church, and because I still have friends in the SBC, I am more than encouraged at recent developments. The wording of SBC policy concerning baptism is much more Baptist today than it was ten years ago. The recent election of Pastor Jim Richards to the the post of first vice-president was also encouraging.

Pastor Richards said this concerning baptism, "You see baptism is not a personal issue. It is not about “how I feel about my baptism.” It is not just the sincerity of the candidate. I t is about scriptural authority. The question is whether baptismal authority is individual or congregational. Jesus gave the commission to baptize to the local church. If the commission were given to every believer then any 9-year-old girl who was a Christian could baptize her convert in the backyard swimming pool. Jesus vested the authority to baptize in the church. The Baptist Faith and Message says baptism is a church ordinance. The local church is the custodian of the ordinances. Only a New Testament church can administer scriptural baptism. There are a few identifying marks of a New Testament church. Are all Baptist churches, New Testament churches? Probably not! Are there New Testament churches that are not Baptist churches? Sure, because what makes a New Testament church is what it teaches, not the name over the door. By the way, one of the identifying marks is that a New Testament church will teach security of the believer."

David Rogers, the other candidate, basically accepts baptism from anyone anywhere.

I only posted all of that to demonstrate to you guys that I do not accuse anyone of heresy without first doing substantial research. Those who do not understand the ordinances or the nature of the church are heretics. Also, those who do not understand the spirit of the Great Commission are heretics. Neither should be fellowshipped.

4:19 AM
Anonymous said...

Let's agree to disagree. You'll find that we have very deep-seeded disagreement in our understanding of Scripture, if you'll read other blogs here.

8:36 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)