Making practical sense of the Sexuality conference

[Haruo]

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.

I'm not at all sure Walker would agree that that was a "positive" result. So to which one person are you referring, if not him, since he is the one you quoted on the subject? I agree with BDW's assessment, that a dearth of "traditional" voices is to be criticized, and detracts from the usefulness of such a conference. This notwithstanding the fact that if I were in CBF I would be advocating for a change in the hiring policy.

[Ed Pettibone]

"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.

Ed: Uh Sandy where was this "long discussion about the intentions of the conference planers using the conference as a launching pad to get some changes made in CBF policy regarding its position on employing individuals of homosexual orientation" ? The current policy is to NOT hire Homosexuals.
And yes we where all told by the sponsors that the conference would not be singularly focused on homosexuality. It was not. But it did seem that most of the presenters did promote the agenda of the homosexual community. There was at least one gay and one lesbian presenter but they where not the only ones promoting the full acceptance of all regardless of sexual orientation. That "they are born that way" seemed to be presented as a given and the possibility of their "having made a choice" was barely mentioned. I never saw the idea that it was not aimed at, or necessarily connected to CBF in any source, where did you find that. I think their may have been a statement that the conference attendance was not limited to CBFers. I have never been to a CBF sponsored event that was limited to CBFers.

In your analysis did you 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" or that such seemed to be the case?

And where you start with "in other words" who's words are you paraphrasing? That inference might be taken by some but I have not head or read any one come close to your degree of negative assertions. Keep in mind, I have said the selection of presenters could have been better. And I will now say that in my opinion some of the other ideas presented where every bit as counter to biblical Christianity as homosexuality. I have indicate that it seemed to be pretty standard Alliance of Baptist boilerplate. As I have said in other discussion some of us made a conscience decision two decades ago to go with CBF in lieu of the Alliance. And today I see no reason to rejoin the Alliance.

And Haruo, thank you for your well stated positive reply to Sandy.

[KeithE]

Doesn't look like any of you are interested in starting a discussion on this...so....

I need the help of my mod/lib friends here.

From Jenelle Williams Paris presentation:

ATLANTA (ABP) – Christians no longer share a consensus that sex outside of marriage is always wrong and must find new ways to deal with that reality besides splitting into smaller and smaller groups over issues like homosexuality and contraception, a keynote speaker said April 19 in the opening session of a [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Mercer University’s Center for Theology and Public Life.

Protestant organizations “have pursued organizational purity” by dividing into factions and fighting about sexual ethics. She said it is time for Christians to recognize their “internal pluralism” and stop trying to force each other into a consensus that no longer exists.

Just asking.

Wrt to sex outside of “marriage”, it depends on what is meant by marriage. If marriage means a true love and commitment, I’m fine will the traditional prohibition. But if it means a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony, I have a hard time allowing such events be the dividing line. Something more substantially of the heart is required. After all God looks at the heart. Anyone can go through a ceremony but not all make the sacrifice to sincerely promise a life-long commitment. Oddly, a civil ceremony has more concrete strings attached (e.g. money) than a religious one (even so called “covenant marriages”). I think some humans want a ceremony so that they will be able to pin scarlet letters on people.

But however one looks at this matter, Ms Paris is right on about organizational purity demands causing unholy factions and fighting over sexual ethics. Internal pluralism (i.e. tolerance of belief on this subject) should be church practice.

I know of a cohabiting couple who want to go to a church but say (paraphrasing as much as I can remember) 'sure- ah uh, we can just walk in there with our 4 year old and say we live at the same address but differing last names and be accepted by all'. I told him that he ought to give WHBC a chance and see (I actually don’t know what would happen). This guy is a close co-worker about 30 yrs old and grew up in Tim Lahaye’s Scott Memorial BC in San Diego.

Ed: Keith I agree that marriage requires something more substantially of the heart than a license from the state and standing before some government authorized individual and going through a pre- planned litany. But there is nothing about requiring the license and ceremony that precludes there being something more substantial.

Didn’t say requiring a license and ceremony precluded love and commitment. Just said love and commitment is sufficient, while license and ceremony is not, imo.

Ed: And how exactly do organizational purity demands cause unholy factions and fighting over sexual ethics? In deed people may fuss and feud about such demands but I believe that it is the hardness of hart that causes the fussing and feuding not a set of demands. And are there no beliefs about this subject outside your bounds of tolerance? Through out the conference the buzz words where covenant and monogamy perhaps so are we to assume that precludes an "Open Marriage"? Or is that ""up to the couple involved"? But If we limit numbers why not limit gender?

Well I guess I should have said, purity demands can cause dissension because of a legalistic tendency. A "law was broken, after all”, and of a sexual nature no less!, some will say. Then people can start taking sides and can do it with animosity towards disagreeing (as we have seen herein to some small degree).

Ed: You friend and his beloved along with their child would be welcome to worship at our church any time and shoot I know a number of married professional couples who have different last names. But The bigger question is why do they not jump through the hoops. And where he previously attended church is of no real importance.

His reluctance is from his previous church experience (like many young people from all sorts of church backgrounds) leading to his incredulous reaction ‘sure- ah uh .... ’. He knows what sort of reaction he would get at Tim Lahaye’s Scott Memorial (at least he imagines he would be rejected if he/they told the truth). Tried to convince him it might not get that reaction everywhere. But he said he is not going back to any church, but added “I do admire Jesus” and through discussions I think he has a clearer picture of Jesus than many Christians.

Yeah I could have told him about our good friends Bill Hamilton and Charlene Hooker (who were married but she wanted to keep her first husband’s name) and were good members at WHBC until they moved back to Texas. But with his attitude I doubt it would do any good. He is still a bright young man and a joy to chat with on a large range of subjects.

[Sandy]

The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?

I've only watched a few of the presentations. However, there is very little Biblical content. Lots of intellectual foundation, but most of the presentations lack any kind of Biblical foundation.

[KeithE]

The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?

I've only watched a few of the presentations. However, there is very little Biblical content. Lots of intellectual foundation, but most of the presentations lack any kind of Biblical foundation.

Huh? A “few" becoming “most”.

[Ed Pettibone]

The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?

I've only watched a few of the presentations. However, there is very little Biblical content. Lots of intellectual foundation, but most of the presentations lack any kind of Biblical foundation.

Huh? A “few" becoming “most”.

Ed: I have watched them all and have the impression that there was a lot more Psych, 204 thru 421 and Soc. 101 thru 511 than either bible or theology

In undergrad I was a Social studies major with 1st level in soc. 2nd in Psych. Minor in religion my secular Grad studies where in counseling and Guidance, My Seminary degree is an M.A./C.E.. My focus for the M.A. Was singles ministry including biblical counseling with Dr. Wayne Oates. SBTS 1990-92. Before going back to Seminary in 90 I had 25 years Employment Counseling, EEO, Test administration and Program Supervision statewide . I was also an active lay leader in singles ministry for 14 years and have had experience working in Old Age Assistance and Mental Heath all of witch I believe make me uniquely qualified to evaluate this conference. I noted in particular they didn't even touch on Sexuality in the work place. And surprise - surprise, I think perhaps Christa Brown should have been invited to a speak on Clergy Sexual abuse.

[Timothy Bonney]

The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?

I've only watched a few of the presentations. However, there is very little Biblical content.

Could that be Sandy because there isn't all that much in the Bible about homosexuality to begin with. It doesn't take that long to go over the relevant scriptures. You don't need a whole conference to do that.

[Haruo]

Maybe not in your traditional KJB or your liberal NRSV, but I'll bet there's a whole lot more in the "Living, Breathing, I-can't-believe-it-says-that Version" with the verbally inerrant footnotes that put Scofield to shame.

[Timothy Bonney]

Maybe not in your traditional KJB or your liberal NRSV, but I'll bet there's a whole lot more in the "Living, Breathing, I-can't-believe-it-says-that Version" with the verbally inerrant footnotes that put Scofield to shame.

LOL, Haruo. And that is the only way you can get the Bible to say very much about homosexuality is to add footnotes and make them "inerrant."

You and I know that there is only a bare handful of scriptures that refer to the issue at all and that is part of why every Christian group that hasn't already taken a position on the issue is struggling with the issue.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

The theology of covenant is certainly biblical...

Now, as to the Biblical references (or lack thereof) with regard to homosexuality, Cody Sanders addressed that. He said that some might wonder why he didn't address the relevant biblical passages. His response was that there's been two generations of scholarship in the field of Biblical Studies on the subject of homosexuality. "GO READ" was his reply.

[Ed Pettibone]

The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?

I've only watched a few of the presentations. However, there is very little Biblical content.

Could that be Sandy because there isn't all that much in the Bible about homosexuality to begin with. It doesn't take that long to go over the relevant scriptures. You don't need a whole conference to do that.

ED: TIm, have you watched the presentations? And BTW the conference did deliver on the promise that homosexuality would not be the only aspect of sex discussed. And there where modernist ideas counter to biblical teaching, such as if your spouse has Alzheimer's you should feel free to find fulfillment in another. They did not discuss if that was only applicable to those who have left till death do us par out of their wedding vows. Note those here who have suggested that covenant trumps legal ceremony, but here we have loneliness trumps both.

[William Thornton]

The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?

I've only watched a few of the presentations. However, there is very little Biblical content.

Could that be Sandy because there isn't all that much in the Bible about homosexuality to begin with. It doesn't take that long to go over the relevant scriptures. You don't need a whole conference to do that.

But remember, Timothy, this conference wasn't about homosexuality primarily and the plenary speaker began with a note that Christian consensus was lacking on sexual matters, including cohabitation outside of marriage and pornography, which is why I would like for some of my mod/lib friends to make some practical sense of it all.

[William Thornton]

The theology of covenant is certainly biblical...

Now, as to the Biblical references (or lack thereof) with regard to homosexuality, Cody Sanders addressed that. He said that some might wonder why he didn't address the relevant biblical passages. His response was that there's been two generations of scholarship in the field of Biblical Studies on the subject of homosexuality. "GO READ" was his reply.

Somehow, I had the impression that there wouldn't be anyone at this conference who would read any of the scriptures on homosexuality and call it abominable.

[Timothy Bonney]

But remember, Timothy, this conference wasn't about homosexuality primarily and the plenary speaker began with a note that Christian consensus was lacking on sexual matters, including cohabitation outside of marriage and pornography, which is why I would like for some of my mod/lib friends to make some practical sense of it all.

I see William. I'd not followed the thread terribly closely.

[Sandy]

The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?

I've only watched a few of the presentations. However, there is very little Biblical content. Lots of intellectual foundation, but most of the presentations lack any kind of Biblical foundation.

Huh? A “few" becoming “most”.

I should clarify, "most" of those I've watched up to this point. I've added one since making this post, and I'm still looking for Biblical content. I don't really care what some "scholar" has written about what he thinks the Bible might be saying if certain circumstances are included, and there's been plenty of dialogue and discussion, and that the diversity of the group involved in the study was properly balanced. If you're going to have a conference about human sexuality and the church, regardless of the amount of content that is found in the Bible on the subject, it is still authoritative, and to ignore it altogether, as several speakers do, or dismiss it because it doesn't suit your perspective and lifestyle, as at least one speaker does, is a calculated error.

[Haruo]

Somehow, I had the impression that there wouldn't be anyone at this conference who would read any of the scriptures on homosexuality and call it abominable.

Since there was no punctuation or alphabetic case distinction in the verbally inerrant original autographs, it's a matter of conjecture whether

What the Bible has to say on the subject of homosexuality is simply, "Abominable!"

or

What the Bible has to say on the subject of homosexuality is simply abominable.

is more correct. This is why one needs to read a humongous pile of recent scholarship to get a handle on these less than a dozen verses. (TIC, but somewhat seriously for TIC)

[Jerry_B]

Haven't had a chance to watch any of the conference. If it is laying the ground work for a change in the current CBF policy, which by all accounts this kinda morphed into, then our church will certainly be evaluating our continued support of the CBF. But I think folks of my ilk need to tread very lightly here. This was for all intensive purposes an "academic event" and at such things all sorts of ideas are discussed, poked and prodded that never leave the confines of the lecture hall. This certainly has the feel of such an event. That's not to be naive and think that something other then academic discussion could come from this, but one conference does not mean the sky is falling. For now I will wait, pray and see.

[Sandy]

Somehow, I had the impression that there wouldn't be anyone at this conference who would read any of the scriptures on homosexuality and call it abominable.

Since there was no punctuation or alphabetic case distinction in the verbally inerrant original autographs, it's a matter of conjecture whether

What the Bible has to say on the subject of homosexuality is simply, "Abominable!"

or

What the Bible has to say on the subject of homosexuality is simply abominable.

is more correct. This is why one needs to read a humongous pile of recent scholarship to get a handle on these less than a dozen verses. (TIC, but somewhat seriously for TIC)

There is "scholarship" of the kind where those who are experts in the Biblical languages go through the text and, from the context clues, word arrangement, sentence structure, etc., determine how to translate the text correctly. Then there is scholarship that attempts to formulate an opinion or interpretation based on its relevance, the weight of its authority within the context of spiritual formation, church leadership, church tradition and the effects of time. What I've seen here so far tends to set the Bible aside as an authoritative representation of God's word, and ignores altogether any kind of spiritual sense of direction from the Holy Spirit, relying almost exclusively on human intellect and current "consensus." So you're getting a very subjective, almost pragmatic view of the subject matter.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Sandy has long been the resident Mr. anti-"academic" here at BL.com

The irony is that, Sandy, you consider your opinions and interpretations which you freely give here to be "informed" yet you poke fun at those (with your broad-sweeping assertions) who offer their informed opinions and interpretations in the form of peer-reviewed academic scholarship.

[Sandy]

An "informed opinion," with a full academic bibliography accompanying it, is nothing more than that if it is not accompanied by a Biblical text rendered in context, and interpreted according to sound hermeneutical principles. It is an "informed opinion," but it is difficult to utilize it in shaping the perspective or policy of a Christian church on an issue, especially if Biblical content is diminished because someone diminishes the spiritual authority it carries, or ignores it altogether because it just doesn't fit with the intended conclusion.

In the Christian life, discerning the will of God isn't an easy task. It is made much more complicated by the infusion of "worldly wisdom" in the form of conclusions drawn by people who have piled up a lot of papers behind them that are meaningless when it comes to spiritual discernment. You yourself (BDW) pointed out that there was no balance in this particular conference when it came to the "traditional" view. I have yet to watch a clip from this conference that contains any Biblical exposition at all. Lacking that, most of what you have here is nothing more than university gas.

I don't know where it came from, so I can't attribute it to its author, but I once heard a statement that said, "If academia were capable of reasoning the solution to humankind's problems, universities would be the most perfect, utopian places in the world."

[Stephen Fox]

Lewis was once a significant other of the sister of one of Nelson Price's Trustees at Shorter, daughter in law of Floyd Battles, one of Jerry Vines key strategists in NW Georgia during the takeover.

How that plays in this drama baffles me, but I thought Joe ought to know

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7336/9/

[Big Daddy Weaver]

"University Gas"

Your dislike of educated "elitists" is humorous in light of your views regarding education. Are educators like yourself at bible/Christian academies immune to the elitism that you accuse others of?

It's interesting how you think you and folks like you have the corner on "discerning God's will." Don't fool yourself.

[Stephen Fox]

I challenge both BDW and Sandy to do key background reading and frame this whole matter from the perspective of Diarmaid McCulloch's last 150 pages of his recent History of Christianity, Section on Culture Wars and the wider Frame.
Basic to this conversation for context.

[Timothy Bonney]

"University Gas"

Your dislike of educated "elitists" is humorous in light of your views regarding education. Are educators like yourself at bible/Christian academies immune to the elitism that you accuse others of?

It's interesting how you think you and folks like you have the corner on "discerning God's will." Don't fool yourself.

OK, where is the "Like" button for this post?

One of the things we have to come to grips with is that the Bible doesn't speak to every issue we might encounter because the authors didn't deal with some issues we deal with. It is hard to come up with a Biblical perspective on issues not directly addressed in the Bible. So we try to find relevant themes which means then you have to have to interpret the scriptures to seek to find application. Proof texting just won't get you very far when you can't show that the author would have had any idea about the topic under discussion.

What is a Biblical perspective on human cloning, space flight and life on other planets, computer use, texting while driving, etc. etc. Not every interest or issue has a first century application.

[Ed Pettibone]

"University Gas"

Your dislike of educated "elitists" is humorous in light of your views regarding education. Are educators like yourself at bible/Christian academies immune to the elitism that you accuse others of?

It's interesting how you think you and folks like you have the corner on "discerning God's will." Don't fool yourself.

Ed: Aaron I think perhaps you are misreading Sandy some what. I think what he is objecting to are are pretty averaged Jack and Jills who think, or at least give the appearance of thinking that two or three degrees make them educated experts not only in their own area of concentration but any and all associated areas. These people seldom show any degree of humility when making a presentation. This is particularly impoverished when the bulk of their presentation comes from quoting from folk who they consider to be experts, if their audience is acquainted with the referee or not.

And I will ask what makes you think that Sandy thinks he has a corner on on Gods will. As I read him, I have never thought of him as thinking that he is the only person who understands Gods will. I do think that some times he mistakenly believes that on some issues his experience is a more true reflection of reality than that of some of the rest of us, with out even knowing what the others experience is. But I Know of no one on these boards who doesn't do that from time to time.

And as i pointed out a few days ago there are indeed a number of committed Baptist and other Christians in a large number of secular Institutions who have not sold their soul to a god of popularity.

And I am sure that Sandy knows some folk in bible/Christian academies who are not immune from the elitism, often seen in secular institutions and some older Church related universities. I do, but I also know a number of men and a few women in such institutions who genuinely seek Gods will consistently and honestly and expect to be conformed to it, to a greater extent than I ever found in more secular institutions with thick catalogs.
Some of the ones that I know in Christian institutions are largely products of secular institutions where they where lost (unnoticed) in the BIG crowd and sought greater recognition and influence even if in a smaller venue.