by Sandy » Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:21 pm
I'd say that the two churches mentioned in the article would be "push back," but given the estimated size of the Welcoming and Affirming community within CBF, they are two churches on the far left fringe. The church in Little Rock appears to have more invested in CBF than Calvary in Washington, given all of their various affiliations.
Would CBF have been better off to simply not consider any change? It seems so, since these churches were supporting it, apparently indefinitely, without its having done anything to the hiring policy. Though I don't think comparisons to the civil rights movement are the same with regard to sexual orientation, that didn't happen the first time a compromise was proposed.
Christian groups set themselves up for "lose lose" propositions. Though the language gets inserted, there's really little consideration given to the fact that there is at least one other side, and that their arguments are equally legitimate, and factually supported. It's not hard to build a case for the sinful nature of homosexuality or gender identity issues from a Biblical perspective. Ninety percent of Christianity holds to those doctrines. The clergy-directed, mainline denominations that have enforced acceptance of gay and lesbian ordination, and assign clergy to churches have blown up over this issue, and the people who are departing, in significantly large numbers, aren't Baptist conservatives, they're moderate to liberal Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Lutherans, among others. Where do you draw the line between the continued existence, and well being, of your organization, and the importance of changing a policy to weigh in on a principle eighty or ninety percent of your people don't really support or agree with?