After a Kentucky church voted to ban interracial couples from the congregation, I posted last week on media understanding of Free Will Baptist hierarchy — or more precisely, the lack thereof.
Over the weekend, that tiny church reversed course. From the Lexington Herald-Leader:
A tiny Pike County church voted Sunday to affirm that it welcomes people of all races, a week after some members touched off a storm of controversy by voting against accepting interracial couples.
Members of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church voted 16-0 Sunday to make clear that everyone is welcome, “regardless of race, creed or color,” and that the church wants to move forward in unity, pastor Stacy Stepp said.
“We voted as a church that we all get back in peace and love and harmony,” Stepp said.
OK, am I the only one confused by that (it wouldn’t be the first time)?
I’m referring specifically to the church’s decision to welcome everyone “regardless of race, creed or color.” Doesn’t creed relate to religious beliefs? Here’s how the Religion Newswriters Association defines “creed”:
A statement of religious belief or faith that encapsulates official teaching. Most have developed over time amid religious and political debates. The word creed is based on the Latin word credo, which means I believe. The most common creeds in Christianity are the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed.
Does that mean the church now welcomes everyone into its fold, regardless of their religious beliefs? Wouldn’t a church be the one place where what one believes would matter? What am I missing?
Alas, The Associated Press’ report on the new vote confused me even more. From AP:
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.
Stepp said about 30 people who attended church services voted on a new resolution that welcomes “believers into our fellowship regardless of race, creed or color.”
So churches can’t discriminate based on creed? Could a church not refuse to allow a female pastor or to perform a same-sex wedding? Does the “free exercise of religion” come into play at all?
Kind GetReligion readers, please help me understand.
Photo via Shutterstock
 | Posted at 11:51 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (17) |
December 6, 2011, at 12:10 pm
My take on it is that they were so ready to get over that horrible move that the “race, creed, and color” was a mantra (if I may mix my “creeds” here).
There are so many words and phrases used and misused today that I doubt she even realized what she said.
At least I hope so.
Regarding the numbers - the way I originally heard the story:
42 member church
15 stayed to vote - 9 to 6 carried
Now, there were only 30 people voting to overturn. 42 less 9 racists is 33. My guess is that 3 of the original 27 who left the meeting still didn’t have the guts to vote so they, along with the 9, brought the voting membership down to 30 by their absence.
Make sense?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
December 6, 2011, at 12:11 pm
I grew up in a Free Church. They’re not creedal Christians; that is, they don’t follow the ancient Christian creeds, but instead ask everyone to adhere to the individual church’s statement of faith. (Most of those faith statements contain the same beliefs as found in the creeds, with a few additions, like biblical infallibility.)
So they likely wouldn’t catch the import of “regardless of creed.” Or they’d think it a political term, such as in the American’s Creed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
December 6, 2011, at 12:52 pm
Besides what others have posted, there are also churches that put creed behind inclusiveness.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
December 6, 2011, at 1:13 pm
For the time being, I have to assume that the quotation was accurate. But it makes no sense, and not only for the reasons already stated. Under valid “local, state or national laws,” which are subject to the First Amendment, the church is legally free to discriminate according to race if it wishes to do so, at least in connection with anything that has to do with its religious activities. Only if it were doing something such as running a hotel or restaurant would nondiscrimination laws apply.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
December 6, 2011, at 1:35 pm
gfe,
You are hitting on my journalistic concerns. Even if the quote was accurate, the story would seem to need more context and explanation for it to make sense in the context of the First Amendment, etc.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
December 6, 2011, at 1:35 pm
And I just used “context” twice in that one sentence. My bad.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
December 6, 2011, at 1:58 pm
What do you think is the First Amendment context? They aren’t making their new policy to comply with a law or avoid state action, they are doing it to save face. There’s no reason for a reporter to create complexity where none exists.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
December 6, 2011, at 2:01 pm
Jeffrey,
Did you read the post? This is from the AP story:
What part of that is not “making their new policy to comply with a law”?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
December 6, 2011, at 2:10 pm
“Race, creed, or color” is a bit like the phrase “let him be anathema” in Catholic Church documents. “If any rejects XYZ, let him be anathema” means “XYZ is an infallible dogmatic definition.”
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
December 6, 2011, at 2:21 pm
Oops, I did skip that quote. Sorry. I imagine the minister is trying to make up reasons for the change and it had nothing to do with legal issues, but it would be inteestIng for a First Amendment lawyer to explain the alleged legal wrinkle.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
December 6, 2011, at 6:15 pm
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination by businesses engaged in interstate commerce in discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion or national origin.” It is not clear to me, who grew up in that era, how “race” and “color” are different. In common parlance, this was often paraphrased as the more alliterative “race, creed, or color”, to the point that the phrase is apparently recited as a mantra, without real comprehension of the semantic content of each word.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
December 6, 2011, at 6:46 pm
I complained in another post about the way “inanywayshapeorform” is spouted out as though it was a single word. The same seems to happen with “racecolororcreed”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
December 6, 2011, at 6:48 pm
Raymond, depending on the way it is used, “race” (which, as they kept reminding us in college, has no scientific definition) can be narrower than the Big Three allegedly distinguished by skin color. (Although I never saw an East Asian who looked “yellow” to me.)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
December 6, 2011, at 8:48 pm
I think we’re giving this person’s words more thought than she herself gave. I agree with Jeffrey that the First Amendment reference is just a smokescreen, groping for a justification for rapid retreat in the face of a firestorm. And “race, creed, color” is politically correct boilerplate that also was likely spouted without much thought as to what it actually means.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
December 6, 2011, at 8:48 pm
That said, is it common for Free Will Baptists to have women pastors?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
December 6, 2011, at 8:51 pm
Matt,
I think the point is that a reporter covering the story should have thought to ask: What law are you talking about? Don’t you have freedom of religion? What do you mean when you say any “race, creed, color.” Those kind of questions.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
December 11, 2011, at 8:00 pm
More details, with a local angle, appeared in this morning’s Terre Haute Tribune Star this morning.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0