CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

A forum for Cooperative Baptist Fellowship-related discussions.

Moderator: Neil Heath

Re: CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

Postby JE Pettibone » Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:33 pm

Ed: See Sandy's lengthy post imedically above where he ask did I get that right?

My reply is "in Part" but to me it looks like a bowl of hash, a definite mixture of truth and error. When you say "I take it that you're not leaving because they are lifting some of those restrictions. You're still with ABC-USA which has a much more open and less restrictive policy regarding homosexual orientation that includes permitting ordination.

You make a couple unsupportable assumptions We have made no decision as to whether we will staying or not. We will be in Dallas, largely to get a personal feel for the reaction of the base. At this point I will say say that we will continue support some CBF partners and write a check to help pay the expenses of the Assembly above and beyond our scheduled assembly events (meals) where there is charge. Secondly our link to ABC- is quite thin. Officially our memberships rest with the last church that Trudy pastored in NYS. And her retirment check from MMB The only ABC church anywhere near us is as far as the 3 CBF churches we have visited. I guess no policy on homosexual ordination is less restrictive that something . ABC-USA has no such policy. Some Regions like Hauro's Evergreen Association make no such restriction, nor do they insist that churches ordain homosexuals ,
Last edited by JE Pettibone on Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:48 am

Re: CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:53 pm

Sandy wrote:If your "revenue" declines to the point where you can't provide for your organizational mission and purpose, which is a priority above supposed "progressive" stances or positions, then you also lose the platform for the progressive issue. Making this into an "either do it or else" issue is selfish, and demostrates a lack of commitment to an organization in which you've committed to participate, and have done so for decades in many cases. Demanding to have everything your way is intolerant, inconsiderate of others who you are cooperating with who hold a different view, and hypocritical. Those on the welcoming and affirming side have demanded a voice and consideration. Now they've got some, but they're not willing to take it in a way that gives the other side an equal voice and consideration.


Making it about money is great politics and lousy theology.

Here is the problem Sandy, as I see it. I think a lot of LGBTQ supporters are willing to work on some kind of compromise. But some compromises look worse than getting nothing at all. A compromise that actually entrenches the notion that LGBTQ persons are second class to straight folk is worse than no compromise at all. It would have been better to maintain the no hiring policy than to make make secondary positions available and leadership positions off limits.

It gives me images of when churches made black people sit in the back row or the balcony to go to church or churches that say a woman can be a pastor, but only the Associate Pastor. The Lead Pastor has to be a man. It sets a hierarchy of straight folks over non-straight folks. Its a horrible image to project.

[Note - the UMC is still working on this too. I'm not saying this is just a Baptist problem.]
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

Postby Bruce Gourley » Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:00 pm

I've just now read through this thread. I don't really have anything of substance and not already noted to add to this healthy dialogue about a difficult issue. My simplest interpretation is that CBF has long been caught between a hard place and a rock, and now, institutionally (and with diligent analysis and due process) chose to thread the needle in hopes of maintaining as much unity amid autonomy as reasonably possible, congregationally and financially. Some churches will leave on the left and right both; how many is anyone's guess. But ultimately, I have no reason to doubt that CBF institutionally will continue along its increasingly progressive trajectory.
User avatar
Bruce Gourley
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:25 pm
Location: Montana

Re: CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

Postby KeithE » Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:50 am

Tim Bonney wrote:
JE Pettibone wrote:
Tim Bonney wrote:Really? I'm already seeing push back from at least one Welcoming and Affirming congregation in a pretty high profile article. I think the LGBTQ folks are likely to see this as almost a slam. You are good enough for supporting roles but not leadership roles.


Ed: Tim, I am curious where is the article in which are you seeing this "push back"?


Here ar a few links Ed.

https://baptistnews.com/article/lgbtq-i ... oRtv2aZOoi

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jeffhood/go-hell-cbf/

http://calvarydc.org/pastoral-letter-2/

Again, as I read this, it is a lose lose situation. There aren't any principles I can think of on either the left or the right which argue that a good policy is that you can hire LGBTQ people but not for leadership positions.

If, theologically, you are opposed to LGBTQ persons having employment in the fellowship you should be against it in all cases. If you are for it, what possible reason for excluding people from leadership if you believe in welcoming LGBTQ people?

This straddles the fence in a way that just is going to bring a lot of pain to the CBF.


And from what I hear from my son, the UMC may have a lot of pain as well at a General Conference on Feb 23-26, 2019. Timothy admits to this issue in the UMC a couple of posts up.

I wish the church (all branches) could just admit that the biblical witness comes to us from a pre-scientific, cultural perspective. Christian beliefs/motivations, deep ethics and theology can all shine through those possibly errant perspectives. We have (mostly) gotten over the scientific divisions of geocentricity, young/old/flat earth models, and divisive cultural issues such as slavery, and gender-based requirements on length of hair and hat wearing (all a matter of biblical application to the times at hand). But for some reason can’t yet seem to bridge the sexual orientation issue.

True, the science of “Is sexual orientation natural or due to a lack of nurturing” is not settled wrt homo sapiens; but more evidence is pointing towards genetics as the cause. For instance:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-cultural-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Empirical_studies
https://www.sciencealert.com/we-just-identified-genetic-evidence-male-sexual-orientation-gay-gene

In the mean time, I suggest that the Great Commandment (Agape Love your Neighbor) prevail (and that includes being non-discriminatory in hiring, attendance, church roles, and socialization). There are a lot of hurting people/parents out there that could use a word of acceptance. And from what I read in the Gospels, Jesus would be on Welcoming and Accepting side and against the Judging and Condemnatory side.

My belated two cents.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8712
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

Postby Haruo » Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:21 pm

It is a very strange new policy. And if I were a Baptist who believed it was just flat wrong to hire gay denominational leaders, I would see this as very probably a step towards the no-escape part of the slippery slope, even if I thought that at least in theory it was okay to hire gay bakers for denominational events, gay janitors for the headquarters complex etc... I mean look at the new movie about the janitor who took over Frito-Lay...
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12057
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

Postby Tim Bonney » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:20 pm

KeithE wrote:And from what I hear from my son, the UMC may have a lot of pain as well at a General Conference on Feb 23-26, 2019. Timothy admits to this issue in the UMC a couple of posts up.



Indeed the UMC is in the process of making decisions about our future and how we will deal both with same sex marriage and with ordination of LGBTQ people. It is going to be difficult, painful, and no matter what we decide we will lose some people. I’m hoping for a situation that allows for the ordination of LGBTQ persons and pastors to be able to make the choice about whose they marry. But there are several options floating around and none of us know which will end up as the final proposal and if it will pass in our General Conference in Feb of 2019.

I’m happy to answer questions. But, a deep discussion of what is going on in the UMC may be too off topic for most folks here.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5818
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

Postby Sandy » Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:43 am

Here's an interesting perspective on the UMC General Conference to come.
https://juicyecumenism.com/2018/02/23/u ... -pro-life/

I must admit, I never really knew much about the Methodist church, at least, not how it operated. The one in my hometown looked a lot like the SBC church I grew up in, similar in size, down to the red koolaide and chocolate chip cookies served at VBS. The pulpit area was different, but I just thought they were being creative. There were times when serving churches that I thought Methodists were on to something in the way that pastors are assigned to churches, but most of what I know about Methodist polity and practice has come from what Timothy has posted here.

I'm in Western Pennsylvania, the rural area outside Pennsylvania. The UMC may well be the largest single Protestant denomination in the area in terms of total membership, though from observation, there are far more Presbyterian churches, but they are split up into at least four different denominational groupings here. There are three UMC congregations within a ten mile radius of my Christian school campus that send students here, and all of them have an in-house scholarship fund specifically for families to use here. One of them has a Pre-K program that provides us with about a fourth of our kindergarten class each year, though many of those kids don't attend that church. Their pastor is a woman who substitutes for us regularly. I know the churches aren't autonomous, and pastors are bound to follow the rulings of the general conference, but I'd say the author of this article is right on target in describing Methodists here. The churches that are represented on our campus do not identify as "Methodist," though they are pretty staunchly Wesleyan in theology. And they are more socially conservative than the Southern Baptists I used to hang out with in Texas.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8642
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

I think BCOC

Postby Stephen Fox » Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:46 pm

in Bham took up the conversation yesterday.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9101
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Previous

Return to CBF Missions and Ministry Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests