CBF to be divided over the homosexuality issue?

[William Thornton]

Al Mohler thinks so, as reported by Associated Baptist Press.

Mohler predicts division in CBF over homosexuality

“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.”

“That is now happening in a very public way in the CBF, a promise no doubt of things to come,” he concluded.

While I recognize that Al is no favorite of CBFers here or elsewhere, his observations seem to be reasonable in the light of recent events and statements. To wit:

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

Hardage reaffirms 'strong biblical policy' on homosexual behavior

Baptists have had several choices for a generation now - SBC, CBF, Alliance being the main ones. If the CBF becomes more liberal, why not just choose Alliance? If the CBF refuses to become more liberal, and that is evidently what the present Moderator desires, then will such individuals not have more affinity for the Alliance?

Looks like the stage is set for the Mercer conference on sexuality.

[Haruo]

Baptists have had several choices for a generation now - SBC, CBF, Alliance being the main ones.

Okay, William, go ahead and marginalize us original Western Hemisphere Baptists.

[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]

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.

The elimination of the policy would at least have the effect of the CBF not taking action against a gay employee or someone on the mission field who is gay.

[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. Check it out. 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]

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: Bruce have you gone from being a historian to a prophet. When did Jesus promote political correctness and majority rule as I recall he frequently bucked the establishment. Seems also he said "13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. "I am not so sure that we have backtracked so much on Slavery. Slavery as in scripture tended more toward indentured Servant-hood than the slavery acceptable in early America primarily in the south enabled by slave traders both north and south and the end of slavery started more more as an economic correction than a as a movement of the spirit in Churches although many of the moneyed who understood slavery as an economic albatross where in Northern churches and utilized them to promote, organize and support the abolition movement and establishment of the underground railroad. God works in mysterious was his wonders to perform. Ye we have professional "sports" where people are bought and sold and as a couple scanddles have come out this past week where teams pay bonuses for injuring opponents enough to keep them out of the game. Sounds something like the Roman Gladiators. Not it is justified by exorbitant prices paid in large part by advertizes who pass the cost to consumers. I don't know that polygamy is portrayed as Gods will, again it was an economic system whitewashed with religiosity . Masterbation indeed got a bad rap and is still rejected in many religious quarters but science has negated the supposed dire results, but we still have women treated as second class citizens in many churches more so than other parts of society. And did you see Jerry- B's objection as a member of a racial minority group to the use of the argument for homosexuality based a false comparison. In that race is well established as genetic and homosexuality is not. There have been some warped studies that seem to make a case for homosexuality being genetic but other researchers have debunked the repeatedly. The largest fault line in most of those studies come in attempts at replicating them. Another comes in the methods of sample selection. Again as I have said before this is not an attempt to put down those who not only claim to have been born "This Way", honestly believe it. The truth is there is no valid evidence of such. Despite huge monetary expenditures to do so. And while they often talk about feeling attraction to the same sex from very early in their childhood memory, they nor any one else studied their gender identity development as it was occurring. And the very attempts to study such tend to bias the studies, Due to the fantastic level of susceptibility to suggestion in very young children.


You may be right about secular political agenda continuing to make inroads in the church to a point the chuch is overcome How ever three are growing segments of the church who as the do study the subject objectively learn how to live with the homo-phoebe label almost as well as policemen some decades ago did with wearing pig jewelery proudly. When did you last hear a Police person called a PIG unless it was in a pre 70's Movie? And yes those of us who oppose the open advocating of Homosexuality as "Just another alternative life style get a bad rap due to the Phelps family. On the other side some of the Rainbow Collation and similar groups have simply learned a litany prepared by others.

[Sandy]

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.

Biblical truth is not subject to either the determination of a generation at large, or to the mistakes made by previous generations in interpretation and practice. The Bible's authors, inspired by the spirit, do not treat homosexuality in the same way they treat polygamy or slavery. I'm not sure about your source regarding masturbation.

I'm not sure of your source of information in what "younger generations at large" have determined, either. I walk into a school each day with a group of "younger generations" from a wide variety of backgrounds, who would almost universally disagree with your contention, and who would be able to cite evidence to back up their point.

[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]

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: Due to the fact that I do not have a lot of opportunity to look inside SBC churches I can not speak to how long in the tooth they may be getting to be. Now I confess that in ABC-NYS we have a dearth of young people. The few I meet do seem to be quite bright and enthused about being a part of their respective churches. In CBF however I do get to a few more churches that identify as such and over the past five or six years I have been impressed with the percentage of young people to Senior Adults. And As I have reported on these pages for some years I have attended the Yong baptist leadership meetings at the National Assemblies of CBF and have been greatly encouraged.

And what would you see as workable compromises on the homosexual issues? (note my use if the plural) Instead of waiting to read about the upcoming conference at Mercer, Why not go and see for your self? Having trekked south for a few conferences sponsored by Mercer, Trudy and I have been very pleased. They are great host. And host is a term that I am comfortable using generically.

[William Thornton]

John Pierce provides a lengthy and insightful look at the matter:

What are the chances of proving Al wrong?

He does a good job of explaining why this is such a prickly issue for the CBF.

Yet others can make a solid case that this current period of great transition (the retirement of CBF’s top executive leader, the search for his replacement, the recent slump in funding that resulted in staff cuts, the extensive efforts of a task force just revealing its findings and recommendations designed to overhaul the organization) is not the best time to tackle a controversial and potentially divisive issue.

Acknowledging this timing issue, the moderator suggested that it might be addressed when a new executive coordinator is in place. My guess is that would be asking a lot of someone who has yet to build up capital to spend. And there could be some very good candidates who are unwilling to accept a new job with that item already inked in at the top of a fresh to-do list.

However, if the toothpaste is indeed out of the tube and additional energies for tackling this topic emerge from the April conference (as is likely), it might be better for an interim coordinator (without a long-term career at stake) to guide the process of airing this out.

Timing is debatable, tricky, and rarely perfect. But this is for sure: WHEN this issue is addressed is an important consideration, but even more important is HOW it is done.

Sounds like a church that has a particular problem that needs to be solved one way or another before the new pastor comes on board and gets skewered by it.

[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, 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.

I don't buy that at all. Mercer and CBF are together on the same campus, use the same facilities. Mercer has at least some gay and lesbian students, I know that much. CBF regularly hires Mercer students for part-time and Mercer alums to full-time work. I don't think it's exactly far-fetched to imagine an openly gay Mercer student seeking employment as a part-time Administrative Assistant or whatever.

I suspect that CBF has already employed at least one - if not more - gay man or lesbian along the way who were only semi-open about sexuality. Even under a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" system, it's still possible to have an understanding about a person's sexuality.

Another issue at play is this: Does the CBF consider field personnel to be an employee under the policy. I'm pretty sure the CBF does. The problem here is that most of these new field personnel are self-supporting. In what sense are they then really CBF employees? The mission field is where this policy has come into play.

This issue is just but one of the many challenges that the next Executive-Director is going to have to deal with. There's no way that this conversation is going to be had and done with at any point in the near future. So the comparison with a church that needs to sort out its mess before hiring a new pastor just doesn't fit here. That's not a realistic option. Otherwise, we CBFers will need to go Executive-Director less for a good long while. These conversations, after all, move extremely slow.

I sense that some blame is being put on Colleen. That's a mistake. These criticisms about the policy have been all over the place for a while. You can see the criticisms on blogs, Twitter on the moderators Facebook page. The criticisms were offered directly this past year to Colleen at a session with her during CBF. So the conversation about the policy has been both public and online. Colleen was just giving expression to an already existing and growing sentiment. Perhaps some were surprised because we're not used to CBF leadership speaking out publicly on really anything.

[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]

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.

[...]

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.

Total agreement. The highlighted line is what Evergreen polity (see YouTubes here) is about. Evergreen is not "pro-gay", does not have a "policy" on homosexuality one way or the other. A few of our churches are AWAB; most are not. The caucus structure allows us the freedom to have a tremendous amount of diversity without needing to expel each other from the body. Some churches that really ought to be in Evergreen (Seattle Chinese Baptist and Queen Anne Baptist come to mind) stayed away from us because their then pastors bought (and sold) the line that Evergreen was about affirming homosexuality. Sad.

[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 column 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!