Making practical sense of the Sexuality conference

[William Thornton]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I haven't listened to all the presentations and probably won't.

But, of those that I did listen to, I will say that the ABP and Baptist Standard reports don't really capture all of the points that were made.

I'd say if you were to listen to any 3: I'd start with Coleman Fannin, Cody Sanders and Sharyn Dowd.

Sanders - who is gay - had an extremely impressive presentation style and substance. Coleman's was like listening to a paper presentation at a conference. A little dry. But his was the "traditional" perspective. He may have been the only person to offer that perspective. I'm not sure. Sharyn Dowd made jokes for the first 10 minutes. So that was a little humorous.

If you're only going to listen to one, try Sanders. You'll have much to write about. He didn't steer clear of politics (rightly so IMO) either. Big fan of that style of homiletics. A well-trained TCU guy.

[Dave Roberts]

I'm waiting to talk with two close friends who were there as to how they perceived the conference.

[Neil Heath]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Aaron Would I be correct or even close in guessing that your surprise at the position taken by two of the speakers was due to their age?

And was the one word used by Andrew Walker that you found problematic, his repeated reference to CBF as the "denomination" ? From only having seen the posted Videos from the conference, his comments seemed to be spot on, although at the outside edge of the spot a few times. I do wish there was some way of knowing how many of the attendees in Atlanta had been at the breakout session in NC.

It will be interesting to see how the reaction to the views made public will play out at this years Assembly. Unfortunately we will not be their so we are looking to you and other to keep us posted. One more word directly about last weeks conference, M Browning seemed to me to be the wrong person to focus on embodiment. And be cause it is a bit snide I considered saying nothing but I am trying to be honest in my reactions. And honestly I will be disappointed if there is not something of a groundswell of protest at the Assembly.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

No, age had nothing to do with it. What I personally knew about a couple of the speakers from a handful of years ago made me think they would represent a "traditional" perspective. That didn't happen. I suspect Coleman was surprised to find himself in that position.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Stephen Fox]

Fannin is a good place to start:

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7328/53/

And it looks to me like ABP is doing a pretty thorough report

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Let me clarify:

My personal theology with regard to this subject is much closer than that of Cody Sanders than Coleman Fannin.

I just tend to think that if your aim is to have a balanced conference, there should have been more clearly traditional voices represented.

I'm a fan of what I call the "Campolo model." Tony vs. Peggy. Anyone who has ever listened on tape, cd, or in-person the Campolos discuss homosexuality know where each one stands at the end of the "conversation." Both are very clear and explicit about their convictions. There's no desire to achieve some confusing "third way" or "new way" that is theologically confusing. Tony and Peggy are very very clear about what they believe. I greatly appreciate that style.

I heard a couple presentations where I was left wondering what the speaker believes.

As to Fannin, much of his presentation was an attack on moderate Baptists who have emphasized concepts like individual freedom and local church autonomy. Fannin appealed to "Tradition" (not the Bible) as a way to navigate sexuality questions. Rather than turning to Baptist voices for possible solutions, Fannin praised the Roman Catholic Church and asked listeners to check out Catholic theology.

Lord knows if I'm looking for answers about sex-related questions, the last place I'm going to turn to is the Catholic Church with its celibacy requirement for priests, artificial birth control prohibition, ban on women as clergy and child sex scandals (and the cover up).

Not saying Baptists have all the answers. I'm just saying the Catholic Church definitely does not.

[William Thornton]

[Stephen Fox]

Here, I think the Alliance of Baptists is a great safety valve for the CBF.

I would much rather be in an association like the CBF than I would be trying to explain Richard Land and Nelson Price to thinking High school seniors and twenty somethings in my church.

I would not be surprised to see Jonathan Merritt, for instance become affiliated with something like a CBF congregation in a few years, if that helps Thornton get to his soundbyte bottom line on this convocation.
Thornton should be called on to explain the pilgrimage of the fellow in Chapter Two of Giberson and Stephens The Anointed from Nearby Statham, Prince Avenue in Athens.
Likewise Ross Douthat's Bad Religion; Douthat I have to believe can make more sense of CBF than he can now of Bryant and Land and Russ Moore's SBC

CBF has much more to offer that fellow and the millions like him than the SBC which Thornton still services.
In all kindness and candor looking for the day when In right minds we sit down together at the table for Good BBQ and good Fellowship.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Baptist Press, I would note, is carrying Andrew Walker's article that I linked above.

[William Thornton]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy, I am not sure what in Aarons post you are questioning with your "Really?" Indeed there where some pre-conference statements statements that such "conferences" aren't intentionally planned to change CBF policy. And and it is still not determined if this one will change CBF policy. In fact I see the possibility of a backlash to this conference that could reinforce the current policy on hiring .

Also when you talk about "all the conversation prior to the conference saying that CBF doesn't do things this way" Let me ask, who said "CBF doesn't do thing" - what way. In reality you and I do not know how CBF did what ever was done leading up to this conference nor at the conference. In not knowing, I am pointing a finger at no one in particular, when I say the selection of speakers could have been better.

As Aaron W,. has said there was no balance, and I saw no evidence of any real effort having been toward trying to provide providing balance. Most professional organization sponsoring such conferences advertize a call for papers and a committee reads and selects what they believe to be the most informative. Many conference I have attended you get at least an abstract of the papers to be presented to assist in your listing and in preparing questions ahead of time. Often there is a respondent to each presentation. As it came off to we in the hinterlands, able to see only the presenters (not even hearing the introductions) it sounded like a pro sexual revolution rally fast forwarded from the 60's and 70's with one speaker thrown in to justify a claim that it was not one sided. Had this conference been presented by the Alliance I would probably not be saying any thing because it would be nothing new for them.

I haven't even heard our most supportive folk in ABCNYS's handful of Welcoming and Affirming churches, get as radical as some of the folk at this conference. It was not reflective of the majority of folk that I have met at CBF assemblies and state and Regional meetings over the past twenty plus years.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I really don't know what you are responding to, Sandy. So it's hard to respond.

As to Vestal, I'm aware the CBF's current position is not just Vestal's. That certainly wasn't my suggestion. However, Vestal has been a good spokesperson for that perspective and defender of the CBF's policy.

Like I said, the conference opened itself up to legitimate criticism due to the lack of balance. It's hard to refute certain accusations in light of the lack of balance.

When you have a CBF conference on sexuality and very few (perhaps only one presenter?) reflect the perspective embodied in the CBF's homosexuality policy, then there's a problem, IMO.

I enjoyed quite a few of the presentations. I also recognize that I'm more "liberal" on this subject than the overwhelming overwhelming majority of CBFers that I'm around here in Texas. Their perspective - which has to remain the perspective of the majority in the CBF - was underrepresented at this conference.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Big Daddy Weaver]

[Sandy]

"Laying an intellectual foundation for pro LGBT advocates to gain momentum in the denomination" is the specific phrase in Andrew Walker's article that prompts my question and comment.

There was a long discussion about the intentions of the conference planners using the conference as a launching pad to get some changes made in CBF policy regarding its position on employing individuals of homosexual orientation. It's just a conference on Baptist views of human sexuality, I was told, not overly focused on LGBT issues, not aimed at, or necessarily connected to CBF. Just some Baptists getting together to talk. And the presenters represented a wide diversity of perspectives, including traditional Christian perspectives, not just one view. Now, in the analysis, I hear one person saying that the foundation for bringing about change on behalf of LGBT advocates within the denomination was a positive result of the conference, and that the slate of presenters was slanted toward one particular position.

In other words, several individuals who are influential in CBF, and who want to see the fellowship reverse its policy regarding hiring individuals of homosexual orientation, called a conference, brought in a slate of like minded presenters, sprinkled with a few people from a more traditional background to give the appearance of fairness, went heavy on the presenters and light on the dialogue, and while putting forward the disclaimer about not being a CBF endorsement, proclaimed the laying of an intellectual foundation to make the kind of changes in CBF they want to see.

Deja vu.