CBF dissent on the [Baptist] Conf on Sexuality and Covenant

[William Thornton]

Associated Baptist Press is carrying an opinion piece by Luke Smith, pastor of Linden Heights Baptist Church in Staunton, Va.:

Opinion: Baptist sexuality conference is misguided

Smith expresses his concern that a "few loud and persistent voices" are driving the issue in the CBF,

Rather than modeling dialogue on important issues of the day, I fear we as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship are modeling how to allow a few loud and persistent voices to derail cooperative alliances.

I believe the voices that are orchestrating this conference do not represent most churches. I think it is important to resist allowing the framing of the issues to be set by people acting independently of their local congregations. Denominational meetings are often hijacked by persistent voices that have little or no influence in their local congregations.

In a time when all religious organizations are experiencing erosion of support, the national CBF organization being among those whose long term existence is questionable, he writes,

If my assessment is accurate this presents a great challenge to the CBF leadership. So long as individuals are allowed to set the parameters of such discussions framed principally from their own assumptions not born out of the local covenanted communities of which they are members, then inevitably the dialogue will be disconnected from the local church.

The CBF often emphasizes a respect for local church autonomy. This is undermined when individuals act independently of their local congregations.

Not to leave the matter there, Smith has yet a second opinion piece on ABP, Opinion: How firm a foundation
in which he says the following:

The conservative take-over in the Southern Baptist Convention left me and many others feeling like our home had been taken. Battles couched in language of the authority of Scripture were in our view really over interpretation of Scripture.

Now I find my bearings once again swirling, but this time from a different direction. Repeatedly I hear young ministers, and even distinguished elder statesmen, dismiss the centrality of Scripture for negotiating our shared conviction about moral issues. The dismissal is usually some variation upon the theme you can make the Bible say anything.

I am concerned the discussion over the upcoming sexuality conference doesn’t reveal a difference over interpretations of disputed passages as much as it reveals a different conviction with regards to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Has God the Spirit inspired these words for the people of God? Or are these words simply a compilation of writings of a few loosely connected but disparate Jewish splinter groups from the first century?

Statements like this makes me want to ask someone to confirm that Luke Smith isn't a ringer, a stealth SBCer. I'd bet that Dave knows him.

The sexuality conference is about a month away. I’m guessing it will be closely watched if not heavily attended.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I responded to Luke Smith and then he left this reply to me. I think he may be related to Dr. James Willingham. He went about 500 words without a paragraph break. I've cleaned it up below:

I appreciate your interaction with my article. I do appreciate the observation that my concerns would be more persuasive with specific examples that underlie my assertions. I did edit this article and removed a number of references that contribute to some of the confusion. But I take your point, and gladly offer some of the influences that shape my judgment on this matter.

I will briefly mention four different areas of observation that have shaped my judgment on the issue of scriptural authority with regards the progressives.

First the information that I have received about the upcoming conference, second my experience at previous discussions (the “family conversation”), my interaction with young clergy, and a recent opinion article that provoked my article. My only information about the specific conference is the material I have been sent by Bo Prosser. I do not believe I was sent anything unique this information was sent out by bulk email. Among this information was the schedule with an explanation of the different sessions.

You will notice by looking at these sessions that the Biblical texts which speak directly to sexual behavior are not addressed in any specificity. If you go down the list from session one to session seven the only reference that one will find to scripture is a fleeting reference in session three. But this reference raises concerns that the issues isn’t principally about the meaning of these Biblical passages but rather how to interpret the “thinness” of the Biblical witness in light of recent “scientific” advances.

I will concede that I am extrapolating from these descriptions my concerns. But I do not think these are unwarranted. If you go to David Gushee’s homepage you will find a link to his “activism”. This page indicates his involvement with a group called Third Way. This is an organization that clearly offers a template for shifting the conversation in such a way to be most effective in championing greater acceptance of homosexuality as a normative behavior. I do not know David’s involvement with this organization beyond what he has written. But the template for shifting the conversation is very similar to the upcoming conference.

My experience with this conversation within the CBF is not of course limited to the conference program and David’s political activities. I did attend the “family discussion” in Charlotte. In this session George Mason flippantly dismissed the scriptural passages. The same George Mason who is the chair of the search committee tasked with recommending Daniel Vestal’s successor. The only scripture even read in the discussion was Acts 10 with the implication that those who have reservations about the sexual morality of same-sex unions were of the same type as those who were reluctant to allow the Gentiles into the church.

In speaking with numerous ministers trained in CBF related seminaries (of which I am one) I have been dismissed by the common line that you can make the Bible say anything. I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but it is a common experience that has shaped my concerns about the conviction of young leaders with regards to the authority of scripture.

Finally this is not simply a matter of a few seminarians what provoked my writing this article was a previous opinion article by Bill Leonard. He entitled his article the Bible tells me so. In this article he makes what struck me as an unsophisticated and insufficient description of the misuse of the Bible. The misuse of the Bible doesn’t come from treating it as authoritative it comes from misusing it!

I certainly do not want to dismiss people without a hearing. I welcome conversations over different interpretations of scripture. I am not convinced this is the purpose of this conference. I do not want people to use “dialogue” as a Trojan horse for shifting the conversation away from scripture.

I agree with your comment, William. I suspect this guy has many many many more problems with CBF and well-known CBFers. Too bad he didn't name names in his columns as he did in his comment.

Here is my reply, no reply back yet:

Luke,

1) Do you think it's fair to conclude that Scripture will not be central to this conference simply because of what the conference Prospectus explicitly states or doesn't state?

I'm half-way through writing what will be a 300-page dissertation on Baptists and environmental ethics. My abstract is 500 words or so. In my abstract, I don't refer to the Bible once. Instead, I use terms like Christian ethics.

Would it be fair for my supervisor to conclude that my dissertation will have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible simply because I don't cite Scripture in my abstract?

I don't think so. And the 160+ pages that I've penned thus far certainly have very much to do with Scripture.

If you notice, the conference prospectus makes repeated reference to Christian ethics. What does that mean to you? Last I checked, the Bible is central to Christian ethics...

Your first point here is simply not reasonable. You're judging a book based on the cover.

2)It seems your biggest beef is with David Gushee. Why then make broad-sweeping assertions, not-so-subtly implying that "young leaders" are being "poorly trained"? Why not just directly confront David Gushee and his involvement with the organization that you mentioned?

By the way, Third Way deals with various issues ONLY in the political arena. David Gushee has repeatedly stated that this conference will not deal with these political questions. Either you take him at his word or you think he's fibbing. Are you then accusing Gushee of being dishonest?

3) Much of the rest of your comment deals with specific persons. You take issue first with George Mason then with Bill Leonard.

Why the lack of specificity in your columns? You're being quite transparent in this comment which I suspect very few will read. Why the lack of openness about your concerns in the previous two columns?

Will you be attending the upcoming conference?

Like Reply

Another commenter - a young Baptist pastor in North Carolina - left this reply to Luke

The main problem with Luke Smith's arguments through both of his articles is his unquestioned assumption that to affirm our LGBTQ neighbors is to deny the witness of scripture. I make this affirmation, not in spite of, but because of the biblical witness.

Since this meeting HAS YET TO HAPPEN (a fact that truly makes this current conversation somewhat absurd) the burden of proof lies with Rev. Smith to make his case. How is he so sure that previous conversations involving the SBC were about interpretation, but this conversation cannot be so?

Off to church...

[Haruo]

ABP is temporarily down, it says, so I can't read the opinions.

[William Thornton]

The lengthy relpy of Smith to you in interesting, Aaron, but I wonder if ABP would have carried his opinion piece if he named Leonard, Mason, and Gushee. One wonders if he has in mind also the CBF's immediate past Moderator,Colleen Burroughs, whose platform is an independent ministry, not a church, and whose parting comments as Moderator gave these discussions a pretty good jump-start.

[Gene Scarborough]

I don't understand the refusal to consider all the aspects of sexuality in light of new discoveries as well as biblical assertions from the Jewish perspective.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality even though it certainly existed in his day and time as well.

It is real. It is here. The real question is whether we will attempt to understand it better and offer fellowship and love to those who are content in a same-sex relationship.

Personally, I applaude the willingness of CBF to confront this issue. It is my hope that scientific discoveries will surface so that all attending and those observing might be enlightened. It might just be that some biblical stuff surfaces as well like "love you neighbor as yourself!"

[Neil Heath]

I must remind us that the upcoming conference is not a conference on homosexuality alone, but on the much broader issues of sexuality in our culture and how the church should be related to them. There's been a lot of heat around this one topic, driven by politics as much as by theology IMHO, but there are more issues we need to be addressing as Christians than just that one. In fact, it's probably the issue faced least by the families in the pews of our churches, and so deserves less, not more, air time.

I would hope it finds a place in the program, but I also hope a lot of other things are on the table. And I hope it is only the beginning of our discussions, a chance to raise questions and talk about contributing factors, not an attempt to find solutions to such things in a day or two.

NH

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Yes, like how abstinence is preached to teenagers but rarely, if ever, is a moral instruction offered to divorced and unmarried adults who don't practice abstinence and who often live together.

Gushee has said this conference will avoid political questions - which is unfortunate as these are issues of social justice. But, it will be interesting to hear how Gushee deals with divorce without wading into political waters.

Gushee has probably devoted more of his personal time and energy to the issue of divorce than homosexuality. He's written a good bit on divorce, specifically "covenant marriage" and his proposals are political.

Most states have generally no-fault divorce laws - meaning a person can request a legal divorce at any point in the marriage and for any reason. However, in many - if not most states - fault can be considered in post-divorce legal settlement proceedings.

Gushee calls this "divorce-on-demand" and claims that "it should be viewed by all evangelicals as little more appealing than abortion-on-demand."

So, Gushee's solution is legal reforms that would make getting a divorce more difficult, require waiting periods, etc.

I don't want government overly involved in the marriage business. I don't want government deciding who can and can't get married (with some limited, obvious exceptions).

So, with that principle in mind, I'm not interested in government regulating strongly who can and cannot get divorced. Divorce is a serious problem, primarily because it disrupts families and children suffer. But I don't think we need government to be the enforcer of what is a religious "covenant."

I also don't think we need reforms that would likely have a decidedly negative impact on spouses in abusive relationships.

[Sandy]

Statements like this makes me want to ask someone to confirm that Luke Smith isn't a ringer, a stealth SBCer.

I think Luke Smith is probably very typical of the pastors you'd find in most CBF congregations, and his theological perspective is probably representative of a majority of CBF pastors and churches.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Which ones? I thought there were only 150 or so? That's the point you often like to make anyways...

[Gene Scarborough]

I appreciate the citing of "things sexual" which are far more than just homosexuality.

Most people like to dismiss and demean homosexuals---until their child comes up and says, "I think I am gay."

[Dave Roberts]

I asked some leading questions in our CBF Peer Learning Group, and there were about as many perspectives as there were people present. I think that speak to CBF.

[Gene Scarborough]

If CBF refused to address important current issues, would we not be doing the same thing now being done by the SBC refusing to deal with sexual molestation internally?

In the days of racial unrest and integration, the Pastors and the Home Missions Magazine Editor, Walker Knight, got all kinds of derision and anger because they discussed it openly. Walker Knight pointed to an Atlanta church working hard opening it's white membership to the blacks who were moving in and had become a majority in the community.

When we get so angry over a simple discussion of important sexual matters, it simply says we enjoy our prejudices as we did in the south pre-integration.

[Sandy]

Which ones? I thought there were only 150 or so? That's the point you often like to make anyways...

I would say he's representative of most of those that remain dually affiliated with the SBC, since his church appears to be one of those. But then, that's part of the way CBF has chosen to organize and present itself, as a fellowship within a denomination, and not necessarily as a denomination itself. With most of its churches still being supporters of the Cooperative Program, and the difficulty determining to what extent any individual church supports CBF compared with the SBC, I'd agree with him that the more "progressive" element of the fellowship represents a small minority of left-wingers who tend to push issues like this, which cause concern among the more conservative element.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

You are prone to exagerate and designate positions to everyone you view.

To call CBF folks "left wingers" is perjorative. My experience of Baptists in general is being left to right of centrist. Your giving of tags is the same as the CR folks who claimed seminaries were "liberal."

I had seen "liberal" as Thomas J.J. Altizer did his thing at Emory my senior year as I was President of our BSU. It was not even discussed nor taught at SEBTS in the 1967-70 "wild years" in the country when all was blowing apart over integration and the Viet Nam War. What I encountered was a balanced approach to theology and exposure to all things theological. The professors at SEBTS were teaching as colleagues who had various personal stances.

I there a problem with you over agreeing to disagree and being capable of working together despite some differences in theology?

[Sandy]

Sandy---

You are prone to exagerate and designate positions to everyone you view.

To call CBF folks "left wingers" is perjorative. My experience of Baptists in general is being left to right of centrist. Your giving of tags is the same as the CR folks who claimed seminaries were "liberal."

I had seen "liberal" as Thomas J.J. Altizer did his thing at Emory my senior year as I was President of our BSU. It was not even discussed nor taught at SEBTS in the 1967-70 "wild years" in the country when all was blowing apart over integration and the Viet Nam War. What I encountered was a balanced approach to theology and exposure to all things theological. The professors at SEBTS were teaching as colleagues who had various personal stances.

I there a problem with you over agreeing to disagree and being capable of working together despite some differences in theology?

I don't think there would be much disagreement, even among those involved in CBF, in calling those who are pushing for CBF to open the door to homosexual employees, and to register an official view that recognizes unions between gays and lesbians, "left wingers."

[KeithE]

I must remind us that the upcoming conference is not a conference on homosexuality alone, but on the much broader issues of sexuality in our culture and how the church should be related to them. There's been a lot of heat around this one topic, driven by politics as much as by theology IMHO, but there are more issues we need to be addressing as Christians than just that one. In fact, it's probably the issue faced least by the families in the pews of our churches, and so deserves less, not more, air time.

I would hope it finds a place in the program, but I also hope a lot of other things are on the table. And I hope it is only the beginning of our discussions, a chance to raise questions and talk about contributing factors, not an attempt to find solutions to such things in a day or two.

NH

Right on Neil. The preoccupation with homosexuality has caused many to read that and only that into this conference. The title is A Conference on Sexuality and Covenant and here is the Program. Only 1/3 of one of 6 sessions even mentions homosexuality/gay/lesbian/same-sex marriage. The subject is not being avoided but it is not its focus either.

William is so eager to find fault with the CBF, his imagination runs wild.

[William Thornton]

William is so eager to find fault with the CBF, his imagination runs wild.

Actually, Keith, you could search this entire topic and find that I have yet to use the word "homosexuality." This post makes for a count of exactly one, in response to you.

Wanting to tread lightly here in the CBF forum, I have studiously used the term "sexuality" in reference to this conference. I am not the source of the news here, nor did I dredge it up for old time's sake. CBFers themselves have said enough to make this quite newsworthy.

I think the conference on sexuality will be interesting...and very closely watched.

[Gene Scarborough]

I just read over the program and am impressed. I wish it were closer by so I could attend.

Question to William: Since you are so close, will you go and see for yourself?

I would welcome a report and trust your honesty in all things.

[William Thornton]

I just read over the program and am impressed. I wish it were closer by so I could attend.

Question to William: Since you are so close, will you go and see for yourself?

I would welcome a report and trust your honesty in all things.

I will not be attending, Gene, but will watch it closely from this distance and perhaps comment on it.

[Gene Scarborough]

I have always been one to see for myself and hope you might change your mind. I seriously doubt boring details will make the news----only what promotes controversy.

[Sandy]

I have always been one to see for myself and hope you might change your mind. I seriously doubt boring details will make the news----only what promotes controversy.

The title of the conference alone has two key words in it which will help it make the news. Putting "Baptist" and "Sexuality" together will attract attention.

Thanks to whomever it was who posted the program in the thread. Looking at the list of presenters, including a fair number of individuals from outside the Baptist family, I see that Luke Smith's contention that CBF is driven by "a few loud and persistent voices" is supported by evidence from a list of those who are either speaking, or "facilitating dialogue," including several individuals from the left side of the Disciples of Christ, with the dominant figure being David Gushee of Mercer University.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

Just like William, if you are really interested then go and see for yourself.

At this point I see nothing offensive in the topics nor leaders and anything said is pure speculation on our part!

[KeithE]

William is so eager to find fault with the CBF, his imagination runs wild.

Actually, Keith, you could search this entire topic and find that I have yet to use the word "homosexuality." This post makes for a count of exactly one, in response to you.

Wanting to tread lightly here in the CBF forum, I have studiously used the term "sexuality" in reference to this conference. I am not the source of the news here, nor did I dredge it up for old time's sake. CBFers themselves have said enough to make this quite newsworthy.

I think the conference on sexuality will be interesting...and very closely watched.

I had noticed that wrt this topic. You’ve been careful. But your earlier topic entitled "CBF to be divided over the homosexuality issue?” you mention homosexuality in most posts (6 mentions by my count). I think (but do not now for sure) that you are hoping this conference turns in that direction and you will be ready and willing to pounce of the CBF if it in any manner affirms homosexuality (rights or acts).

[Gene Scarborough]

I just hope William will go and give us a accurate report. I think we can trust him to be fair and balanced as well as accurate.

[Sandy]

Sandy---

Just like William, if you are really interested then go and see for yourself.

At this point I see nothing offensive in the topics nor leaders and anything said is pure speculation on our part!

Content aside, (and no one said anything about "offensive" content at all) Smith's contention was that the direction of CBF is driven by "a few loud and persistent voices." And here's a conference that they are putting on which is receiving a lot of attention, and which is being billed as definitive with regard to CBF and its position on the issue of "human sexuality" with the program and presenters overwhelmingly representing a perspective that falls on the left side of the fellowship. The conference itself, and whether or not it proves to be a defining moment in CBF history will be determined later. What I'm commenting on is Luke Smith's contention that a few loud and persistent voices drive the organization in a direction that may not be consistent with the perspective of a significant portion of its constituents. I think the makeup of this particular program supports his contention.