CBF to be divided over the homosexuality issue?

[William Thornton]

[Haruo]

[William Thornton]

Allow me to elaborate

Southern Baptists and former Southern Baptists have had...

While some disenchanted SBC moderates and liberals have moved to ABC, UMB and Episcopalian and Roman Catholic, most are CBF.

[KeithE]

It strikes me as very strange that one closely related set of issues surrounding homosexuality (hiring, church attendance, church membership, church leadership of gays/lesbians) should be the determining factor as to which Baptist body one should belong to - SBC, CBF, Alliance or the myriads of other Baptist bodies in either Hemisphere.

Perhaps William is just hoping CBF breaks apart over this issue. Perhaps I’m hoping the SBC breaks apart over the Calvinism (Mohler) / Arminian (Patterson) issue. Perhaps we both are just amused over these things.

Yet Christ wants that we all be one.

[William Thornton]

Keith, I'm not hoping for anything, merely observing. No doubt you recall that in the CBF's early days one of the criticisms that came from more conservative SBCers was that the CBF would follow the mainline denominational trend on the issue of homosexuality. Either out of damage control or conviction, perhaps both, CBF leaders at the time implemented the very policy to which the present elected CBF head has taken aim. No sooner had ABP (Baptists most dependable religious news organization) reported her words than one of the most important moderate Baptist leaders, the CEO of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, reacted strongly.

I don't know if the issue of homosexuality is the chief determining factor in deciding one's Baptist affiliations, but I'd guess that it is important enough for conservative CBFers to have concern about being defined by that one factor.

I'm with Al Mohler. If Burroughs has her wish, that the CBF revisit this policy, then I'd guess that it will prove divisive. The national CBF organization is about the budgetary size of a megachurch these days and has endured a long series of retrenchments and reductions. Controversy over homosexuality cannot help the organization gain a stronger long term outlook.

The thing about the SBC is that it is large enough to absorb even the severest blows and Calvinism may well prove to be the most severe since the Conservative Resurgence.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I think it is reasonable to suggest that if CBFers were to ever consider adopting a statement or organizational policy affirming same-sex relationships that it would prove divisive.

Alliance of Baptists did that. American Baptists have not. And I don't see CBF taking that step at any point in the foreseeable future.

What we have here is a moderator stating her personal opinion about the CBF's policy.

I'm glad she spoke out. I know that many young CBFers have expressed their opinion directly to the Moderator in the last year about the policy. There's also some behind-the-scenes info that some CBFers are privy to involving the enforcement of that policy on an individual.

I think it's a bad policy because it's been enforced in a rather inconsistent way. For years, BPFNA was not welcome at CBF. Now, BPFNA has a very visible presence at the CBF, with its leaders leading a workshop and a prominent CBF pastor headlining BPFNA's breakfast.

I think this change was good. But what prompted the change? The policy didn't change.

Bottom line is that there has always been a diversity of viewpoints regarding homosexuality among active CBFers. Clearly, there is a world of difference between Ed Pettibone and Amy Butler with any number of nuanced positions in-btween.

I think though that some outsiders have the wrong impression about the sexuality conference. The conference appears tightly controlled. This definitely ain't gonna be no coming out party for gays and gay-affirming folks in the CBF.

I am glad, however, that folks are beginning to have a discussion - a discussion that CBF is not actively trying to stop. So kudos to the organizers and CBF.

I am disappointed that the conference is steering clear of political questions related to homosexuality. Historically, marriage has been considered a religious freedom issue. At least it was for 18th century Separate Baptists in Virginia. Ask Isaac Backus.

If Obama's contraceptive mandate is a grave threat to religious liberty as Southern Baptists contend, then surely Amendment One in North Carolina is an equally grave threat to the religious liberty of many gays and lesbians of faith.

Many might not be willing as a matter of conscience to affirm same-sex relationships but we all ought to be able to affirm that gays and lesbians couples should enjoy the same rights and freedoms - including religious freedoms - as heterosexual couples.

As to David Hardage of the BGCT, I find his statement unfortunate. I'm not sure why he felt compelled to weigh in on this matter and at this point. I can envision a scenario when Hardage would need to make a statement. But that time had not come.

Let's be clear here:

The BGCT has taken a hardline on homosexuality. The way Royal Lane was kicked out of the convention was - to be honest - shameful. Paige Patterson and Company demonstrated more compassion and understanding to the situation involving Broadway Baptist than the BGCT did toward Royal Lane.

[Sandy]

As far as Hardage and the BGCT are concerned, he's heading off trouble at the pass, so to speak. One of the big concerns among most BGCT affiliated churches about its hand-picked, CBF leaning executive board is that it will do something to lead the BGCT into a higher level of financial support of the financially struggling CBF, going beyond the current level of voluntary designation. Look at the numbers. The BGCT allows churches to designate missions money to CBF, the SBC, BGCT "global missions" causes, or any combination of the three. Look at the numbers in the Standard article. The SBC amount is 10 times what goes to CBF. That's in a convention that has long been billed as "moderate." Conventions are not directed in such matters by their employees in denominational headquarters buildings, those individuals work for the churches, and the churches of the BGCT have clearly expressed their desire for an exclusively Biblical view on the subject.

This is an issue that will be divisive for groups like CBF. In order to characterize homosexual behavior as anything but sin, and to handle it in a manner other than something which requires repentance and forgiveness requires stepping away from the Biblical narratives regarding human sexuality. It's becoming obvious that there really aren't very many people in the pews of churches of just about any kind who are willing to do that. CBF is entering its second generation, as William has stated, with shrinking financial contributions, and leadership that is entrenched and aging, with apparently very few "young leaders" left to whom the reins can be passed. If they get too far ahead, and around the corner from their suppport base, they endanger their future. I guess the decision those who want to be more liberal on this issue have to answer is whether or not they are willing to continue to support the organization if its majority prefers not to do things their way.

[Dave Roberts]

As I read Mohler's article, it seems that he is the chief cheerleader of finding division in CBF. Frankly, the policy that was adopted has had virtually no effect on the churches at all, and I don't see a change in or elimination of the policy having much effect. The only way that a policy would have a major impact is if that policy were pro-gay, an endorsement of monogamous same sex relationships, and that is not very likely to happen. I personally wish that Colleen had left this alone, but I respect her freedom to speak her concerns as well.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Sandy,

I hear you about Hardage heading off trouble. I just don't think this is an issue that requires clarity on the part of the BGCT.

The BGCT has been hardline on homosexuality.

I wrote about the financial woes of BGCT and CBF back in October. The data is interesting. I showed that the BGCT and CBF were forced to chop their budgets by 32 percent and 28 percent respectively over the last 5 years.

That's a significant decline due to many other factors that a recession and slow recovery.

I think the decline really has little to do with theology (or the economy) and everything to do with the basic fact that there is less of a demand for the "products" and "services" of both the BGCT and CBF from individuals and churches.

Changes in the religious landscape can account for *some* of this demand drop-off in our post-denominational society. But ultimately, I think the struggles are largely due to leadership and organizational vision/mission issues.

Look at the BGCT. Hardage is the third Exec-Director in just a handful of years. There's been scandal and a ton of change and layoffs, etc. The lack of stability and a clear vision certainly hasn't served the BGCT well.

As to homosexuality, I appreciate the model put forth by Peggy and Tony Campolo. Both have shown how to be "biblical" on this issue and how to address and deal with this issue. I like their approach and attitudes. This approach means that multiple perspectives can co-exist. Truth is, we CBFers have been co-existing for 20 years now with churches and individuals holding diverse viewpoints on homosexuality.

I hope that the CBF will have a bright and vibrant future. "Size" is not how success should be measured, in my opinion.

[Bruce Gourley]

Homosexuality is today a divisive issue, but the future has already been determined: younger generations at large, from conservative to liberal, consider homosexuality biological, not a sin.

We Christians have already backtracked on slavery (portrayed as God's will in the Bible), polygamy (again, portrayed as God's will in the Bible), and masturbation (portrayed, in the Bible, as an evil punishable by death) ... plus a whole host of other biblical sins that once were taboo but are no longer considered so - even among the most conservative of Christians. Despite our sometimes rhetoric, from fundamentalist to liberal we as Baptists live daily with a practical understanding that God's revealed will is a work yet in progress.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

I wouldn't dispute that there are generational differences in acceptance of homosexuality in the church. If the CBF is like the SBC, getting long in the tooth, the price for the future might be compromise on the issue. I'm curious to read about the Mercer conference coming up shortly.

[Ed Pettibone]

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

William, I would agree with you that the issue needs to be clarified before the next executive coordinator comes on board, since Colleen brought it to the forefront. Frankly, I think the chance for CBF employing an openly gay staff member are not much more likely than for the SBC. However, I do think that having a respectful dialogue on the issues of human sexuality is needful among all groups.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[William Thornton]

I'm guessing that there will be some immediate divide over this just from reading the intelligent, reasonable, and informed responses from younger (Weaver) and older (uh, middle-aged, Pierce) folks who have an interest in the matter.

Interesting question from BDW raising the matter of CBF field personnel. Seems like the SBC was created out of just such a division.

My outsider observation is that the CBF could never avoid the consequences of approving or promoting field personnel who were homosexual by claiming that such was a local church not a CBF decision.

Pierce, a leading CBFer, says that this should not be handed to the new CEO, lest he or she expend all the capital they have and some they don't on it. Weaver says it's not going to happen but then he notes that the matter has been bubbling all around until the present Moderator addressed it. Is this the type of thing that will seize the moment and not wait for a plan or calendar?

[Big Daddy Weaver]

The hiring policy issue has been bubbling - but I never thought it was an issue that could gain traction for something to actually happen. I think younger Baptists just wanted to be heard on the matter. Colleen heard those younger Baptists and agreed. If the movers and shakers in the CBF wanted to address this policy issue, they would have already.

Listen, there are some younger Baptists who lack the sense to understand the complexities of these issues and discussions. They don't get that money matters. I don't think these folks represent a majority of younger Baptists though.

I get the practical considerations. I'm not interested in seeing the CBF adopt some welcoming & affirming statement. My good pastor friend - who is a lesbian - thinks an organization is anti-gay (to some degree) if they don't have such a statement.

I strongly disagree. I'm not a fan of creeds and don't put much stock in those statements. I'm a member of a diverse church, an extremely interesting church with Repubs, Dems, straights, gays, separationists and even some Christian Nation folks. A great church that is not dysfunctional. I'd like to see the CBF be able to acknowledge its diversity and still function as a family.

So, I don't see the need to push the CBF to adopt a statement on the matter. I do think the hiring policy - as written now - needs changing for a number of reasons.

I fear though that Al Mohler might end up more right than wrong. I think Mohler could be correct because I sense that some folks connected to CBF (how involved and committed these individuals are to CBF is up for debate, people always like to swoop in and give their opinion) are going to drive division. For example, see the ABP op-ed by Luke Smith opposing the upcoming Sexuality conference.

There are some people who don't want to touch the topic of homosexuality with a ten-foot pole. These people are going to spread the assertion that discussing homosexuality is essentially the same as affirming homosexuality.

If that assertion sells, it could hurt the CBF and sow division.

[Haruo]

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.baptiststoday.org/johndpierc ... nt17252428

I have trumped Mohler in a comment response to Pierce's blog; with reference to Molly Marshall and Marilynne Robinson.

I see where I am late to the punch on Pierce blog. Apologies to Thornton and commendations for his wide ranging search (Even so still waiting on his review of Giberson and Stephens the Anointed so Jerry Vines will have something recent to consider since Thornton on Lottie Moon)

Still see my comment on Al at end of Pierce Blog

[Stephen Fox]

to suggest that churches and CBF friends who still love their parents though their parents may not be as far as they are in the generational acceptance of a matter that for most of their lives was a taboo; that with the collegial relationship of CBF and often official partnership with the Alliance of Baptists, that the Alliance continues to be the petri dish for advancement on the gay issue, while CBF functions as welcoming community for Baptists who are not part of Santorum and Jesse Helms Inerrant America; who fellowship on many matters but are more and more alien to the absolute certainties of fundamentalism of the Richard Land and Al Mohler, Falwell and Jerry Vines stripe?

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... 99t_heard/

Tangential in places, but to the heart of larger concerns.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I just saw this from Daniel Vestal in ABP defending the hiring policy.

The irony here is that Vestal is leaving the CBF to work at Mercer which has a policy against discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.

Not only is Mercer's policy the complete opposite of the CBF's - but Mercer recently adopted a new policy to provide health and other benefits to partners of employees regardless of orientation!