SBC President Meets With Gay Leaders

[Alan Carter]

Quite an interesting story. What are we to think?

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35600

[Haruo]

I'm waiting to see how the meeting is reported by AWAB. Such meetings are good. But I must say there's a lot of distance to be covered before we get to where they understand each other. As with the sin of miscegenation and so on, the sweep of history will eventually cause the SBC to repent of its position on this stuff, it will be seen that "sexual purity" isn't exclusively the territory of the celibate and the male-female-paired.

[Ed Pettibone]

Quite an interesting story. What are we to think?

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=35600

Ed: I congratulate Wright on his stance. And for taking the time to meet with this delegation at a time when he had other very important issues to deal with.

And by the way. I am more convinced as to the veracity of this BP account, since it is by Michael Foust than I may have been had it been by BP's regular stringers. I had held out hope for some time that Michael would see the light and abandon the takeover cable.

In addition, I had a set-to with the Jack Mckinney named in the story, during a statement of concerns session at the ABC-USA Biennial in Denver in 2005. At that time he was pastor of Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh NC. The church now has a lesbian Pastor who was hired as Co-Pastor while Mckinney was still there. Their current website does not show them as affiliated with ABC-USA. I would not be surprised if they have left the ABC-USA, as he and some of his folk where unhappy campers in Denver. I believe it was in the late 90s that the SBC had dismissed them.

[Alan Carter]

Here is a link to the first account on Baptist Press. Its a little different.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35736

I especially like this quote by Wright: "The hateful rhetoric of some professing believers has tarnished the reputation of other Christians, Wright said."

Perhaps we as Baptists should spend a bit more time looking in the mirror before we head out to work.

[Ed Pettibone]

Here is a link to the first account on Baptist Press. Its a little different.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=35736

I especially like this quote by Wright: "The hateful rhetoric of some professing believers has tarnished the reputation of other Christians, Wright said."

Perhaps we as Baptists should spend a bit more time looking in the mirror before we head out to work.

Lets put that in a more full context of what Wright said

"We're a coalition of groups asking the SBC to acknowledge and apologize for the damage that the convention has done to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," Jack McKinney, a heterosexual married man told Wright at the beginning of the meeting. McKinney is a spokesperson for Faith in America and a former Southern Baptist minister. McKinney and the other leaders repeatedly made parallels between racism and a stance against homosexuality. Sixteen years ago to the day, McKinney said, Southern Baptists passed a resolution apologizing for past racism.

"We feel like the convention is making the same mistake in the way it has demonized LGBT people," said McKinney, who handed Wright a packet of 10,000 signatures. "We come today to ask for an apology for that and for a pledge that those kinds of teachings would come to an end."

Wright, sitting at a roundtable with McKinney and four of the other leaders, rejected the parallels.

"Obviously, we don't feel that there can be an apology for teaching sexual purity," Wright, pastor of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, Ga., said. "As followers of Christ, our only authority for practicing our faith is Scripture, is the Word of God.... As followers of Christ it would be very difficult for us to betray our faith by ignoring what God says about sexual purity."

The Bible condemns both homosexual sex and heterosexual sex that is outside the bonds of marriage, Wright said.

[Jim]

I suppose Wright can be commended – at least in this forum – for meeting with the homosexuals. Not to have done so might have made him appear insensitive to them, though in even acknowledging their request he could have been accused of being insensitive to Christ, the OT writers and Paul, who all made it clear that homosexual behavior is “unnatural” and unacceptable in the eyes of God…in other words, not negotiable. Wright made that plain, so the SBC’s position didn’t change, which is probably what his partners in dialogue wanted, the better to make the SBC even more a pariah in as many demographic blocs as possible. The predictable comparison to the totally inane “apology” of 1995, which the leaders of the largest black Baptist denominations laughed to scorn, was made, though Wright was too polite to give it the proper “apples-to-oranges” treatment (or at least I don’t think he did). The proper question for Wright to have asked was simply, “Why don’t you go to churches which not only welcome you but affirm you?” Such churches are plentiful. Or, he might have suggested that they start churches for homosexuals, probably possible only in communities large enough from which to fashion a congregation. The approach to Wright could backfire, uniting people of all faiths against what any serious believer knows is an abomination to God.

[Alan Carter]

I agree with what you are saying but I only know of two semi-Baptist churches in Dallas that welcome and affirm. Most in the pew Baptists cannot bring themselves to honestly and openly welcome gay people. They have started their own churches but if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that they need to start their own churches where homosexuality and gayness are considered sins and preached against. That probably isn't going to happen but at least the thought is there.

At least we're all talking and that should prove helpful in the days to come.

[Jim]

I meant that homosexuals would do well to start their own churches, in which they can welcome and affirm each other and stop trying to bend all other churches out of shape over what they consider political correctness mainly, but other churches, in the SBC for instance, consider a biblical matter. And Baptist denominations/churches are not the only ones on the planet. Many churches within denominations, though prohibited officially, welcome, affirm, ordain and carry out same-sex unions of whatever kind they design. Whole denominations like the UCC, Alliance of Baptists probably, and the Episcopalians are gung-ho for this stuff. So, the LBGT (or whatever it’s called) gang makes it a virtual crusade to go after the entities that don’t want this stuff – sort of “in your face.” Since it makes no sense, it’s just mean-spirited…but I bet it’s more fun.

[Haruo]

Where did Jesus tell the Samaritan woman at the well to repent? Where did he say to her "sin no more"? These are rhetorical questions meant to suggest that "sexual purity" is not the place to begin dialogue with the "sexually impure". (I'm not suggesting she was GLBT!)

Bryant Wright's implication that seriousness, committedness, and monogamy in homosexual relationships are to be disregarded and those relationships to be equated with one-night stands and casual pairings among heterosexual couples is also a big part of the reason that the dialogue has yet really to be joined.

Incidentally, Alan, what does "semi-Baptist" mean as a description of Dallas-area churches? I have a vision of a church that insists on half-immersion as a baptismal mode, but I'm sure that's not what you mean, just not sure what you do mean.

These "gay leaders" by and large do already go to churches that welcome and affirm them without condemning their sexuality out of hand. (This does not mean that they or their churches believe that they are not sinners, or that all sexual behavior is acceptable in God's sight. And it does not mean that they overlook Christ, the OT writers, or Paul in their study of these issues. From reading the InSpiriter over a number of years, this is quite obvious, as well as from having attended Seattle's Metropolitan Community Church for a year, a decade or so back.) Their stated concern is for those other GLBT people who are being harmed and driven away from God by endemic gay-hating behavior and speech in SBC (and other fundamentalist) churches. This is a fact of life, and a major impediment to evangelizing our neighborhoods.

[Alan Carter]

Well, let's see. In Texas we have semi-Baptist churches that are "lightly Baptist" or "barely Baptist" meaning that barely subscribe to those things which make Baptists distinctive. Usually they laugh at inerrancy, have women pastors and deacons, social drink, and usually are more welcoming of gay members than the more traditional Baptist churches. I would consider Royal Lane Baptist Church and Wilshire Baptist Church to be semi-Baptist and First Baptist and Prestonwood to be more traditional. In regards to gay folks, FBC and Prestonwood are much more homophobic than any others I know of in our region.

[Haruo]

Well, let's see. In Texas we have semi-Baptist churches that are "lightly Baptist" or "barely Baptist" meaning that barely subscribe to those things which make Baptists distinctive. Usually they laugh at inerrancy, have women pastors and deacons, social drink, and usually are more welcoming of gay members than the more traditional Baptist churches. I would consider Royal Lane Baptist Church and Wilshire Baptist Church to be semi-Baptist and First Baptist and Prestonwood to be more traditional. In regards to gay folks, FBC and Prestonwood are much more homophobic than any others I know of in our region.

When I think of Baptist Distinctives, I think of this acronymic list:

• Biblical Authority
• Autonomy of the Local Church
• Priesthood of All Believers
• Two Ordinances
• Individual Soul Competence
• Saved Church Membership
• Two Offices
• Separation of Church and State

While for some Baptists Biblical Authority has been supplanted by Biblical Inerrancy, for others it has not. Doesn't make either group less baptist. For those who hold to the foot-washing ordinance or who have an office of elder distinct from pastor and deacon, they're in luck, since "Three" upholds the distinctive as well as "Two" does. For those determined to make convention membership a must, I suppose "Associational Principle" could be substituted for "Autonomy". Or for those who think Welch's is more important than freedom, I suppose "Abstinence from Intoxicating Communion Wine" could be substituted for "Autonomy". I see nothing in this list that pertains to sex, though. Neither gender (or marital status) of officers nor orientation (or marital status) of members is addressed. Clearly a major lacuna in the acronymic foresight of our forebears.

[Ed Pettibone]

I agree with what you are saying but I only know of two semi-Baptist churches in Dallas that welcome and affirm. Most in the pew Baptists cannot bring themselves to honestly and openly welcome gay people. They have started their own churches but if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that they need to start their own churches where homosexuality and gayness are considered sins and preached against. That probably isn't going to happen but at least the thought is there.

At least we're all talking and that should prove helpful in the days to come.

Ed: Alan, where do you see Jim suggesting that "they need to start their own churches where homosexuality and gayness are considered sins and preached against." Jim some times has unique ideas but he is not stupid. And I am not as optimistic about where this discussion may lead as you seem to be.

Back to you suggestion that "Most in the pew Baptists cannot bring themselves to honestly and openly welcome gay people." For many of us it is a problem of welcoming gay people on their terms. And honestly I do not have as much problem welcoming gay and Lesbians as I do to welcome straights from outside who try to tell us who and how we have to welcome. At the few gay rights rallies that I have observed live there seem to be far more straights than Gays and Lesbians. And I really do not under stand why gays would want to join or attend a church which teaches that homosexuality is a sin, unless they think that from the inside they can change the church and if that is their goal, no they are not welcome and I make no apology for it.

[Alan Carter]

I have no problem with gay people starting their own churches where they can affirm and love each other but I doubt seriously they would ever start one where being gay is called a sin. I think what some of our SBC leaders are trying to say is that we need to be less homophobic in the things we say and do toward gay people--and that doesn't mean that we accept their lifestyle--just their right to be able to come into our churches without being discriminated against. I think there is a huge difference between a gay militant demanding a place at the table in our Baptist churches and a believer who is not "out" and sits in the pews and operates in leadership while he/she struggles with their gayness. I imagine they get tired of homophobic statements from the hallways and the pulpits and I think we owe them a certain amount of decency and decorum. I don't have to endorse their lifestyle to be nice to them. Personally, I appreciate Dr. Mohler and others who have come out of the closet on this issue.

[Stephen Fox]

Well, let's see. In Texas we have semi-Baptist churches that are "lightly Baptist" or "barely Baptist" meaning that barely subscribe to those things which make Baptists distinctive. Usually they laugh at inerrancy, have women pastors and deacons, social drink, and usually are more welcoming of gay members than the more traditional Baptist churches. I would consider Royal Lane Baptist Church and Wilshire Baptist Church to be semi-Baptist and First Baptist and Prestonwood to be more traditional. In regards to gay folks, FBC and Prestonwood are much more homophobic than any others I know of in our region.

When I think of Baptist Distinctives, I think of this acronymic list:

• Biblical Authority
• Autonomy of the Local Church
• Priesthood of All Believers
• Two Ordinances
• Individual Soul Competence
• Saved Church Membership
• Two Offices
• Separation of Church and State

While for some Baptists Biblical Authority has been supplanted by Biblical Inerrancy, for others it has not. Doesn't make either group less baptist. For those who hold to the foot-washing ordinance or who have an office of elder distinct from pastor and deacon, they're in luck, since "Three" upholds the distinctive as well as "Two" does. For those determined to make convention membership a must, I suppose "Associational Principle" could be substituted for "Autonomy". Or for those who think Welch's is more important than freedom, I suppose "Abstinence from Intoxicating Communion Wine" could be substituted for "Autonomy". I see nothing in this list that pertains to sex, though. Neither gender (or marital status) of officers nor orientation (or marital status) of members is addressed. Clearly a major lacuna in the acronymic foresight of our forebears.

I thought Karl Childers had pretty good summation on this topic in Slingblade, bug kinda like Alan Carter, I don't think my Grandfather Fox shoulda been condemned for holding his view and that was only 50 years ago.

As for Al Mohler, he falls under the Judgment of the James Dunn quote I shared in the thread on him from Weaver's new book.