CBF leader says it's time to revisit ban on hiring gays

[Timothy Bonney]

I think we may be over-reacting on this.

Indeed! But hey if Ed wants to encourage people to join the United Methodist Church down the road who am I to argue.

"Come ye sinners poor and needy weak and wounded, sick and sore
Jesus ready stands to save you full of grace and love and power.
I will arise and go to Jesus he will embrace me in his arms
In the arms of my dear savior, Oh there are ten thousands charms!"

[Gene Scarborough]

You have touched my heart, Tim---------------THANKS!!!!

[Timothy Bonney]

You have touched my heart, Tim---------------THANKS!!!!

I love that hymn!

[Ed Pettibone]

I have no problem referring homosexuals to our local Methodist church.

That is much appreciated Ed. But you don't have to. People know when they aren't welcome. And we are more than happy for any sinner to join our church since we believe that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Ed: So Tim if People know when they aren't welcome why would a Homosexual want to work for CBF? I guess I should should, also let them know that that one of the two local Episcopal churches is also open to them. But note I did not say we would not welcome sinners to worship with us, but to join they would have to repent.

Did Not John Wesley say

It is generally supposed, that repentance and faith are only the gate of religion; that they are necessary only at the beginning of our Christian course, when we are setting out in the way to the kingdom.... And this is undoubtedly true, that there is a repentance and a faith, which are, more especially, necessary at the beginning: a repentance, which is a conviction of our utter sinfulness, and guiltiness, and helplessness.... But, notwithstanding this, there is also a repentance and a faith (taking the words in another sense, a sense not quite the same, nor yet entirely different) which are requisite after we have "believed the gospel;" yea, and in every subsequent stage of our Christian course, or we cannot "run the race which is set before us." And this repentance and faith are full as necessary, in order to our continuance and growth in grace, as the former faith and repentance were, in order to our entering into the kingdom of God.

[Timothy Bonney]

Yes Ed that sounds like a quote from Mr. Wesley. But that doesn't answer the underlying issue. All of us are sinners and all of us need to repent of our sins.
The underlying issue is that not everyone believes that homosexual behavior is sinful. And I'd guess that even fewer believe that just being gay, having a homosexual orientation is sinful.

So you know as well as I do that those who don't believe homosexuality is sinful are going to feel the need to repent of something you think is a sin and that they don't.

[Haruo]

When one is convicted of a sin, by all means repent of it. But the best thing, I think, is to have the contrition and the humility to know that we each of us are if not sinning this second at least prone to, and to do the best we can to repent of all our sin, especially the part we're not (yet) convicted of.

I can't for the life of me fathom how that quotation from Wesley can be applied to justify sending certain sinners down the street because their sin profile doesn't match our denomination as well as another one.

[Timothy Bonney]

I can't for the life of me fathom how that quotation from Wesley can be applied to justify sending certain sinners down the street because their sin profile doesn't match our denomination as well as another one.

Agreed Haruo. Ed is just hoping to take a poke at me with a Wesley quote. What Wesley was actually talking about their is the need for sanctification which comes from continued repentance and continued growth in grace. Unless someone wants to claim that they have been made perfect in love already, not something even Mr. Wesley would claim for himself, then we are all sinners on on the path to what God wants us to be.

[Jerry_B]

Ed - I have read both articles. I have to believe more was said then was reported. I would like to know the full context of the comments, I'm sure there was more to the comments that I feel confident would provide some clarity on this issue.

All sinners are welcome at church. If not we would have to close up shop, you know being sinners and all. In welcoming sinners however our church does not believe it is right to affirm what the Bible calls immoral, be it homosexuality, adultery or any of the other sins spoken of in the Bible.

[Gene Scarborough]

The basis of morality has always been the 10 Commandments plus Jesus' "Love the Lord your God and your neighbor as yourself."

I can't see homosexuality in any of this.

It is equally clear that the Jewish outlook was to stone homosexuals as well as those who violated the multitude of eating and cleanliness laws. The Pharisees and Saducees build a "fence around the law" with multiple things like those which had them accusing Jesus and his disciples of harvesting on the Sabbath when the plucked grain walking through a field.

We don't follow kosher rules normally in our religious walk.

What makes us pick out the homosexual stuff as such a focus?

We now deplore Paul's stuff on slaves because that is not compatable with the Constitution of the US. In the past, however, Southern Baptists formed over slavery. Even Thomas Jefferson owned and sired children by his slaves!

I think this pretty much proves we are "selective sinners and judgers of such." The basic translation of harmartia is "separation." If we seperate our society between races / social classes / sex / sexual orientation, I think we qualify as being in a state of separation from God (who created them) and our fellow humans on this planet.

[KeithE]

I would hope nothing would be done to "placate" anyone. In fact I don't want to be placated. We believe homosexuality to be inconsistent with the Christian lifestyle as a matter of conscience. I would hope this is the reason the CBF instated the policy in the first place, because they actually believed it. If CBF doesn't believe this any longer and wants to change, that is fine, well within their rights. As is our right to no longer associate with them.

What I cannot fathom is such a central focus on homosexuality when considering denominational (or denominational subgroups) membership. It involves a subset of life for at most 7% of people. Jesus certainly did not make a big deal of it that we know of. He did make a big deal out of Pharisaism, out of judging others, out of helping the poor/sick/hungry/ostracized, out of doing the great commission (to all the world). Choose a denomination and a church on these "weightier matters”.

I would be judging the denomination by a very narrow standard if I left it for support/non-support of homosexual rights or banning homosexuals from membership or any position within that church.

CBF is right to re-assess its stance on homosexuality periodically, it’s a complex issue. Why not wait to see the outcome and then pray (or re-pray) about?

Ed: So Tim if People know when they aren't welcome why would a Homosexual want to work for CBF? I guess I should should, also let them know that that one of the two local Episcopal churches is also open to them. But note I did not say we would not welcome sinners to worship with us, but to join they would have to repent.

I shudder to think we would be giving potential church members an inquisition upon entry to a church, demanding identification and repentance of all sins (or particular sins) as prerequisite. The inquisition committee would be declaring someone unclean if they send a homosexual (out of or in the closet, practicing or not), down the street to the UCC or UMC or Episcopal church because they just could not tolerate his/her presence - let those screwed up denominations deal with the unclean ones. I suspect God would not think highly of such gatekeeping. We do not usually point anyone down the street who does not help the poor, acts like a Pharisee, or does not evangelize actively (and those matters are clearly delineated by Jesus).

And if I were to obsess with gatekeeping of my church’s or denomination's door, I am by definition a Pharisee who Jesus condemned and I would be working on my attitude with a lot of prayer. Work on the weightier matters while inside the gate and keep the gate as open as possible - Jesus did.

Now if someone (homosexual or heterosexual) started making passes at people regularly, I’d show them the door.

My judgment (and I could easily be wrong) is that homosexuality is short of what God intended. So is a lot of behaviors. Whether inclinations towards homosexuality/bisexuality is 1) inherited in genes, 2) influenced by our upbringing, or 3) entirely of our own choosing is not at all clear to me. Whereas being a person who walks by the other road when he sees a person in need is certainly not an inherited trait. We’d have to kick out virtually everyone from our churches, if we did so consistently for anyone who ignores people in need.

You know that a psychologist might say an obsession with the homosexuality of others just might be a reaction to curtail one’s inner struggle. I’d say just as likely it is a case of desiring to declare oneself as better than some easy targets.

[Matt Richard]

I've heard a lot of people (both on and off of this board) applaud and defend this announcement because this issue is "not going away" and it "needs to be dealt with." Since when is "dealing" with something synonymous with questioning or affirming it? Since a policy already exists on the subject, has it not been dealt with?

As a Texas Baptist, I'm thankful for our new ED's statement concerning this announcement: http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.ph ... &Itemid=53

This is something Texas Baptists have "dealt with" already, and I think it demonstrates the difference between the CBF and BGCT, in spite of some that would desire to equate the two groups.

[Dave Roberts]

CBF's adopted statement was a response to accusations that CBF was pro-gay which it never was. The reports I have seen do not explain what Colleen meant. I hate to either attack or defend when there is little or no information beyond a statement of a need to revisit the statement, whatever that may mean.

[Ed Pettibone]

I would hope nothing would be done to "placate" anyone. In fact I don't want to be placated. We believe homosexuality to be inconsistent with the Christian lifestyle as a matter of conscience. I would hope this is the reason the CBF instated the policy in the first place, because they actually believed it. If CBF doesn't believe this any longer and wants to change, that is fine, well within their rights. As is our right to no longer associate with them.

What I cannot fathom is such a central focus on homosexuality when considering denominational (or denominational subgroups) membership. It involves a subset of life for at most 7% of people. Jesus certainly did not make a big deal of it that we know of. He did make a big deal out of Pharisaism, out of judging others, out of helping the poor/sick/hungry/ostracized, out of doing the great commission (to all the world). Choose a denomination and a church on these "weightier matters”.

Ed: And Keith why is it so difficult to fathom why sin is considered individuals for employment (the subject of Jerry's post ) by a Christian organization.

Keith: I would be judging the denomination by a very narrow standard if I left it for support/non-support of homosexual rights or banning homosexuals from membership or any position within that church.

Ed: If that narrowness is too much so for you, you would be welcome to stay I am sure.

Keith: CBF is right to re-assess its stance on homosexuality periodically, it’s a complex issue. Why not wait to see the outcome and then pray (or re-pray) about?

Ed; I have seen no one saying that CBF is not right to reexamine the question. Some have questioned Colleene's conclusion that the present hiring policy is not workable.

Ed: So Tim if People know when they aren't welcome why would a Homosexual want to work for CBF? I guess I should should, also let them know that that one of the two local Episcopal churches is also open to them. But note I did not say we would not welcome sinners to worship with us, but to join they would have to repent.

Keith: I shudder to think we would be giving potential church members an inquisition upon entry to a church, demanding identification and repentance of all sins (or particular sins) as prerequisite. The inquisition committee would be declaring someone unclean if they send a homosexual (out of or in the closet, practicing or not), down the street to the UCC or UMC or Episcopal church because they just could not tolerate his/her presence - let those screwed up denominations deal with the unclean ones. I suspect God would not think highly of such gatekeeping. We do not usually point anyone down the street who does not help the poor, acts like a Pharisee, or does not evangelize actively (and those matters are clearly delineated by Jesus).

Ed: And Keith I think inquisition as you use it here is simply a flame word, I think inquiry is sufficient. But Keith are you saying the church has no right to have expectations for membership. And I believe you have long ignored a distinction that I have made frequently between who I believe should be welcomed into Membership and whom we should minister to and invite to worship with us. This distinction may or may not alive you concern about what some other local church does.
And I suspect god prefers gate keeping for hos church over saying come one and all and we will not ask you to change.

Keith: And if I were to obsess with gatekeeping of my church’s or denomination's door, I am by definition a Pharisee who Jesus condemned and I would be working on my attitude with a lot of prayer. Work on the weightier matters while inside the gate and keep the gate as open as possible - Jesus did.

Ed; I really don' think we should obsess about any thing including the inclusion of homosexuals. I believe Jesus pointed up a number of errors of the Pharisees but when did he "condemn" the individual pharisee.


Keith: Now if someone (homosexual or heterosexual) started making passes at people regularly, I’d show them the door.

Ed: How soon. I would invite them to discuss their actions and explain what we consider to be more appropriate, gay or straight.

Keith: My judgment (and I could easily be wrong) is that homosexuality is short of what God intended. So is a lot of behaviors. Whether inclinations towards homosexuality/bisexuality is 1) inherited in genes, 2) influenced by our upbringing, or 3) entirely of our own choosing is not at all clear to me. Whereas being a person who walks by the other road when he sees a person in need is certainly not an inherited trait. We’d have to kick out virtually everyone from our churches, if we did so consistently for anyone who ignores people in need.

Ed: I am glad to see in your first sentence that you agree with Joy Yee one of our recent CBF National moderators who was on on the panel when we had an open session on the subject of ministering to homosexuals at the CBF National assembly in Charlotte in (in I think 2009) I not sure that their where any BL.C participants other than Myself and Rock in on that session. And i have never objected to the many discussions we have had at CBF assemblies on ministering to those in need.
The church that i am currently in does rather well at meeting need of the church family and strangers. We would not have to kick anyone out on that score.

Keit: You know that a psychologist might say an obsession with the homosexuality of others just might be a reaction to curtail one’s inner struggle. I’d say just as likely it is a case of desiring to declare oneself as better than some easy targets.

Ed: The only folk I am acquainted with who come close to what I would call obsessing about homosexuality are some friends in the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Churches. And I personally have known Psychologist and more importantly Psychiatrist who would say both of your comments immediately above are over simplifications of complex question. To say to me that " a psychologist might say" is about like saying a lawyer or a car sales person, or a Pastor "might say". Far to general.

Post edited to add reply to Dave Roberts, who wrote: "The reports I have seen do not explain what Colleen meant. I hate to either attack or defend when there is little or no information beyond a statement of a need to revisit the statement, whatever that may mean."

Dave did you see this close to the ABP story ?

While prevented from giving the issue attention that it deserves this year, Burroughs said she felt obliged to share her own opinion. “I find the policy to be divisive, unenforceable and probably not Baptist,” she said.

Note the reference to being prevented from giving attention to the issue, was explained elsewhere in the article as being prevented by the crush of other matters the not least of which was setting up and participating on the task-force responsible for the candidate search for Vestals replacement. I have said that I am disappointing in that statement. Because I believe the current policy has served us well but I would be glad to listen to further explanation of what she meant from Colleen. If you recall last October I went on record as favoring her as Dan Vestal's replacement.

[Gene Scarborough]

Good Lord, Ed----your above is about as understandable as a termite in a yo-yo!!!!

[Ed Pettibone]

Good Lord, Ed----your above is about as understandable as a termite in a yo-yo!!!!

Ed: Gene try asking Dave Roberts if he understood it.

[Dave Roberts]

I understood Colleen had been busy, but I simply want more information.

[Ed Pettibone]

I understood Colleen had been busy, but I simply want more information.

Ed: She is quoted as saying in the ABP story, as defining "busy" as having "More pressing concerns including balancing a budget deficit last year, the impending retirement of CBF Executive Coordinator Daniel Vestal and implementation of a 2012 Task Force, however, took precedent" and later "“I find the policy to be divisive, unenforceable and probably not Baptist,” she said." So Dave what more information? She finds the policy divisive and unenforceable and probably not Baptist ? She also seems to believe there is a great demand to change it. Can there be more. Now I will agree that those who read that as she is wanting to revisit the policy, as an entree to accepting homosexual as co-laborers in the CBF structure could be wrong, and if so that would delight me.

[Gene Scarborough]

As I read her, it should make you happy, Ed.

I think she is referring to the normal staff employee doing low level work---NOT to any leadership staff or the CEO.

[Gene Scarborough]

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7187/53/

Al Mohler sticks his mouth into the CBF:

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in his daily podcast briefing March 2 that CBF moderator Colleen Burroughs’ recent call to “have a conversation” about the organization’s policy of not funding organizations that affirm homosexuality and against the intentional hiring of gays is a sign of things to come.
===============================================================================================
“Now I’m not sure exactly what she means by the probably not Baptist, other than the fact that it requires a judgment to be made,” said Mohler, who took over as president of Southern Seminary in 1993, while Burroughs and her husband were students at the SBC seminary located in Louisville, Ky.

As usual, Mohler is skewing his comments into divisiveness as if he was not a "first cousin to Rush Limbaugh" divider!

With his usual smirk of distortion and "righteousness" he ends:

“It’s going to be very interesting to see how this issue unfolds in the CBF,” Mohler said. He predicted that an upcoming [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by CBF and Mercer University “is likely just to be a start, the public start, of a very divisive conversation.”

“The issue of homosexuality is not going to trouble, at least in a divisive way, those who have a clear and very principled stand on the subject,” he said. “But if you try to stand in some kind of middle, some kind of artificial neutrality in which you have a policy that isn’t so clearly established upon biblical authority, well you’re going to find that it is a target of continual renegotiation and calls for change.”

Well Al---your stuff is that of the Pharisses who tried to distort Jesus and divert him with legal questions meant only to make people hate him for either answer he gave! It was simply: DIVISIVE!

Jesus put his spirit of love into his answers---I believe CBF can do the same!

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: So my first question Gene , is do you love Al Mohler. Secondly would you give us a source for the quotes attributed to Al.? Now in fairness let me say I love AL as a human being and wish him no harm but when I look at him as a professed christian and prominent leader if my former denomination as well as being President of the the Seminary of which he and I are both Alum, I can not truthfully say that I like him.

[Gene Scarborough]

We are TOTALLY AGREED, Ed!!!

[Jerry_B]

I would hope nothing would be done to "placate" anyone. In fact I don't want to be placated. We believe homosexuality to be inconsistent with the Christian lifestyle as a matter of conscience. I would hope this is the reason the CBF instated the policy in the first place, because they actually believed it. If CBF doesn't believe this any longer and wants to change, that is fine, well within their rights. As is our right to no longer associate with them.

What I cannot fathom is such a central focus on homosexuality when considering denominational (or denominational subgroups) membership. It involves a subset of life for at most 7% of people. Jesus certainly did not make a big deal of it that we know of. He did make a big deal out of Pharisaism, out of judging others, out of helping the poor/sick/hungry/ostracized, out of doing the great commission (to all the world). Choose a denomination and a church on these "weightier matters”.

I would be judging the denomination by a very narrow standard if I left it for support/non-support of homosexual rights or banning homosexuals from membership or any position within that church.

CBF is right to re-assess its stance on homosexuality periodically, it’s a complex issue. Why not wait to see the outcome and then pray (or re-pray) about?

Though I appreciate the sentiment, I could not disagree more. There are legitimate, biblical reasons for breaking off fellowship with individuals and thusly denominations. Creating an environment that agrees to call "normative" or "affirmed" a lifestyle that the Bible calls immoral would certainly be one of those reasons in my book.

I understand that there are not a lot of passages concerning homosexuality in scripture and that Jesus is not recorded as addressing the issue in the Gospels, but each mention homosexuality is done so in a negative, sinful light. I don't see how I could in good conscience allow the silence of Jesus on a topic to supersede what was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by his apostles. Jesus didn't address a lot of things concerning human sexuality, does that mean everything Jesus didn't mention is fair game? I don't believe that to be the case.

[Gene Scarborough]

Jerry---

If Jesus didn't like the Pharisees and said harsh things of them in Matthew 23---would you approve of them pastoring mega churches in 2012?

I think that is more worthy than listening to Al Mohler et al be so "righteous" over gays today.

[Jerry_B]

Gene,

Not sure what you mean

[Gene Scarborough]

Just thinkaboudit!!!

No specific words about gays from Jesus / very specific things in Matthew 23 over super rightous religiosity.

Which one does the religious right wish he said / which one do they pretend he didn't say?