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

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I'm calling bull here, Sandy.

Aside from Gushee who is listed as "convener" at about 5 different points, please identify which presenters that you are familiar with and demonstrate that they represent a "left" perspective.

I'm willing to bet that you don't know more than 25% of the names - if even that.

These aren't big names. There's no Bill Leonard; no George Mason.

So please, quit making assertions and throw out the names that you know and lets look at the names you don't know.

Only the most involved CBFers are going to know many of these names. And some won't know many of these names because they haven't led CBF workshops in the past, haven't spoken at CBF in the past, many are younger.

All is also is a moot point when - as Neil pointed out - this conference is going to deal with much more than homosexuality. At least a large chunk of these people aren't even going to touch the issue.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

These are the names:

Rick Bennett - Director of Missional Formation, CBF

David Gushee

Janell Paris - Messiah College professor

Guy Sayles - FBC Asheville

Sharyn Dowd

Coleman Fannin

Melissa Browning

Emily Holladay

Jennifer Crumpton

Roz Nichols

Rhonda Blevins

Cody Sanders

LeDayne Polaski

Wendell Griffen

Joy Yee

Pat Anderson

[Sandy]

These are the names that I know, besides Gushee---and from my perspective, would be "to the left" of the center of CBF--

Joy Yee, pastor of San Francisco's 19th Avenue Baptist Church, which I believe is a welcoming and affirming congregation as far as GLBT issues are concenrned.
LeDayne Polaski, of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, an organization which was previously defunded by CBF because of its stance on homosexuality
Sharyn Dowd, Pastor of Decatur, GA FBC and Guy Sayles, pastor of FBC Asheville, NC, both uniquely aligned CBF churches on the left side of the fellowship
Coleman Fannin from Baylor, a name I recognize, not sure exactly what department he's from there.

I do not know Jennifer Crumpton or Cody Sanders. But I know that to pass the standard for being a D of C ordained minister, you can't be very conservative. I took classes at Brite Divinity School in Ft. Worth and it was far to the left back in the 80's. I doubt that it has changed, so I would guess that Mr. Sanders' perspective would reflect that. I don't know the name Emily Holliday, but if she's a student a McAfee School of Theology, that would also most likely help to discern her position. I believe Joshua Villines, who was in the past one of the more leftward leaning members of Baptistlife.com, was also a student there. They are related to Mercer, and their position in relation to the Baptist family at large is pretty clear.

Don't underestimate who I might know in CBF. I was in it for more than a decade, active, present at most of the General Assemblies as well as many of the state gatherings and conferences, including several on the East coast. I have met many of these people personally, including Gushee, Yee, Dowd and Sayles. For several years, my wife and I sat one pew behind Dr. Ken Chafin and his wife in worship. I could give you a fairly lengthy list of individuals connected to CBF and to the Alliance whom we've shared meals with.

I often reflected as Pastor Smith did, that it seemed that suddenly, CBF went from being a fellowship of churches opposed to the conservative resurgence, to embracing things which set them apart from churches that chose to remain in the SBC.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

In all honesty, your sound like you might be happier in the SBC where prejudice and judgmentalism reign supreme.

Whenever anyone starts placing people as "left / right---conservative /liberal," I start wondering what is their definition of such and why try to put people at odds with one another when we might just be looking honestly at a give issue which is real and needs a good look.

Do you have the guts to go and see for yourself and give us a report?

Otherwise, it's just pure speculation on your part---from a position you already obviously enjoy.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

One of my bestfriends was a minister for about 5 years in San Francisco. She knew Joy Yee.

Joy Yee is not welcoming and affirming nor is her church.

In fact, Yee's church is one of the ONLY non-SBC Baptist churches in the Bay Area that is not welcoming & affirming.

Coleman Fannin is not welcoming & affirming. He has a couple of degrees from Baylor (Truett and Church-State) and I think teaches as an adjunct at Baylor, perhaps in the Great Texts program. His wife is in the phd program at Baylor. I presented a paper on a panel with her just a few weeks ago in Dallas. Coleman is also a former UGA alum like myself.

You aren't going to find a theologian at Baylor who is gay-affirming. That's just a fact. Coleman has a Phd in Theology from University of Dayton, a Catholic school. I suspect - based on what I know about Coleman and his views on community and orthodoxy - that he is heavily influenced by Catholic moral theology.

Now, moving on to Sayles and Dowd:

What makes these two on the "left side of the fellowship"? Are you contending that they are on the "left side" simply because their churches are uniquely aligned with the CBF???

You do realize that makes absolutely no sense.

I don't know Guy Sayles. His church - to my knowledge - has not in a formal way come out as gay-affirming.

But, I am more familiar with Sharyn Dowd. She's a former Baylor Religion prof and former minister at Calvary Baptist in Waco under JPR.

I have not known her to be gay-affirming. In fact, I remember attending a service at Calvary - when she helped plan the worship services - where an "ex-gay" gave his testimony on overcoming his struggles with homosexuality. That's not the kind of testimony you are going to hear at a gay-affirming church to say the least. Calvary then was not gay-affirming. Heck, I don't even think anyone would accuse Calvary of being even gay-friendly!

I'll give you Polaski. She represents the more liberal perspective of those 5 individuals.

I'll add that Joshua V. does not embody the perspective of the McAfee student body today. He'll tell you that. I think he's even criticized McAfee in the past along those lines.

Most schools are diverse; some more than others. You can't draw a conclusion about a student just because of where they go to school. McAfee has it's share of conservatives simply due to the fact that it is affordable with good scholarship money and conveniently located in big Atlanta.

Two of my best friends are McAfee alums. One is a lesbian and pastor in NC. The other pastors a small Southern Baptist church in a rural Atlanta suburb with no ties to CBF.

I remember going to Passport some years ago and two of the leaders were then current Southern Seminary students. One was a female. And of course, quite a few Truett students and alums serve or go on to serve uniquely aligned SBC churches.

You may have been involved a long-time ago. But you've been uninvolved for quite some time. Your assertions are based on your assumptions and associations (attends Mcafee therefore is liberal).

Who knows how many of these individuals will even address topics relating to same-sex anything.

Again, like I said earlier, Gushee has devoted much more of his academic career to the subject of divorce and covenant marriage than to homosexuality. That's his issue. I expect it will be front-and-center.

[Stephen Fox]

Have either Sandy or BDWeave read the book yet?
Who on this board beside me has read the book.

How much corridor talk at this convocation will center on the Trayvon Martin Crisis.
Who at the conference will be versed in Marilynne Robinson's thoughts in Absence of Mind.

Is the younger generation of the CBF running away too fast from all the great witness of the generation of Randall Lolleyand Bill Self; even Truett before them?

A note. March 26 at Furman, Scott Henderson, an openly gay proff there for the last 15 years, delivered the lecture What Really Matters, part of the L.D. Johnson commemoration lecture series.

Among his predecessors in the lecture series was Jeff Rogers, Hardy Clemons successor at FBC, Greenville.

One more suggestion for Gushee and all.

Hope one of the wise presenters there will be able to frame this conversation in the last 150 pages of Diarmaid MacCulloch's magisterial work on Christianity. I think that could add perspective not only for Thornton and Sandy, but Scarborough and Gushee as well

And BDWeaver; would be honored if you would take a look at my blog on Vestal, Elvis, Laura Bush and the ADF; in development; but click over now

[Gene Scarborough]

BDW---knowledge of people is a powerful thing. In a way I feel sorry for Sandy with "Foot in Mouth" disease!

Stephen---the name dropping is not impressive. Try to, once in a while, speak to the subject---if your can!

[Sandy]

I guess "to the left" has a lot to do where you are and where you draw the line. I tend to think, from my own experiences, not all that long ago, that most CBF churches that "ride the fence" with the SBC are going to be a lot closer to the SBC's view that the issue of homosexuality is pretty well settled in scripture, not requiring a whole lot of human interpretation or speculation, than anyone who thinks a conference on human sexuality should include at least some discussion on the matter. I would still contend that this conference represents what Luke Smith calls "a few loud, persistent voices" against the backdrop of theological perspective in CBF. We could very well be having this discussion about whether women should serve as pastors of churches, since few CBF congregations have moved in that direction as well. And I'm sure there are others who would look at it from that angle, and draw the same conclusion.

[Sandy]

Have either Sandy or BDWeave read the book yet?

No. It'll be a while. I have something I am planning to read over my spring break next week.

“When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/b ... z1qSuvkQTL

Thanks for the referral.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

The best thing about CBF is that they are allowing for "dissenting voices!"

[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.

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).

Come on Keith, you are a rocket scientist and usually far more accurate than you have been here. The earlier topic on homosexuality was driven by the former CBF Moderator's comments which introduced, rather pointedly, the H subject.


Oh, so you are into reading my state of mind now? I may be "hoping"....?

[Sandy]

Sandy---

The best thing about CBF is that they are allowing for "dissenting voices!"

CBF allows for just about any dissent from any quarter, except a conservative Biblical approach. Then, their general response is to stonewall, ignore, and hope it goes away. I was closely involved for quite a while, long enough to know that when they set up events like this conference, and carefully bill them as being defining moments for the organization, the presenters and the content have been carefully selected and arranged with the idea in mind to influence and move the participants in a particular direction, and ultimately, to influence the direction of the organization itself. They are quite pleased when their benign appearance conveys the impression of "diversity." These are, for the most part, still ex-Southern Baptists who have strong connections to the pre-1979 leadership and they are experts at strong-arming an agenda.

Since BDW is pretty much in full agreement with that particular perspective within CBF, he isn't going to see it any other way. You're impressed by anything CBF does, a perspective that is colored by your distorted opinion of the SBC.

[Gene Scarborough]

Former President Jimmy Carter engages Al Mohler:

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7261/53/

Carter admitted to being “kind of selective” when it comes to the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality.

“I really turn almost exclusively to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned homosexuality at all as a sin,” Carter said. “He never condemned homosexuals and so I don’t condemn homosexuals. And our church, our little church in Plains, we don’t ask, when people come to join our church, if they’re gay or not. We don’t ordain, we don’t practice marriage between gay couples in our church, but that’s a Baptist privilege of autonomy of local churches.”

Carter said he had “one problem” in balancing his faith and public service while in office over the issue of abortion. While he never believed that Jesus would approve of abortion, Carter said his duties as president required that he comply with the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that declared most abortions a private matter between a woman and her physician. Because of his religious beliefs, however, he said he set out to impliment everything he could to minimize the need for abortion by liberalizing adoption laws and starting a program still in existence called Woman and Infant Children to help poor women care for their children after they are born.

Carter said he believes faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but he doesn’t necessarily believe that people who never have opportunity to hear the gospel are condemned to hell. He also said he feels “very strongly, in the eyes of God, women are equal to men.”

All this flies in the face of the "Mohler outlook."

[KeithE]

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).

Come on Keith, you are a rocket scientist and usually far more accurate than you have been here. The earlier topic on homosexuality was driven by the former CBF Moderator's comments which introduced, rather pointedly, the H subject.


Oh, so you are into reading my state of mind now? I may be "hoping"....?

Not quite the whole story William. The earlier topic was led off by the ABP article about Al Mohler’s remarks about Colleen Burroughs’ call for discussion on the subject. I see Mohler as “hoping” to see a CBF squabble over “H" explicitly at the Conference on Sexuality and Covenant. You were most likely “hopping” on Mohler’s suspicion as I saw it.

I can’t normally read minds with precision (and I admitted so above in red - I meant “know” instead of “now” -spell checkers miss somethings). So I’ll leave it to you as to whether or not you are truly “hoping” for a squabble or not. I know for sure that I’m somewhat hoping for a Calvinist/Arminian split in the SBC to validate my belief that fundamentalist groups are prone to fracture; but it is hardly foremost on my mind. Perhaps you are the same.

[William Thornton]

Keith, The CBF is a minor (minor in size, not in importance) Baptist slpinter organization and no serious threat to anything about the SBC, so I'm not hoping for anything negative, although I do find developments interesting.

Along with not a few SBCers, I have long thought that the CBF would go down the same road as the other mainline denominations on some issues. I'm thinking that many CBFers are where Colleen Burroughs is on the issue of homosexuality. Her statements and reactions to it are indicative of some degree of divergence on the matter, as are the opinion pieces of Luke Smith that I linked in this topic.

The CBF news these days is all self-created. No one has to make these things up just to stir the pot.

...you can email Al Mohler about his hopes. I will be glad to share mine...if you ask.

[Sandy]

Former President Jimmy Carter engages Al Mohler:

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7261/53/

Carter admitted to being “kind of selective” when it comes to the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality.

“I really turn almost exclusively to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned homosexuality at all as a sin,” Carter said. “He never condemned homosexuals and so I don’t condemn homosexuals. And our church, our little church in Plains, we don’t ask, when people come to join our church, if they’re gay or not. We don’t ordain, we don’t practice marriage between gay couples in our church, but that’s a Baptist privilege of autonomy of local churches.”

Carter said he had “one problem” in balancing his faith and public service while in office over the issue of abortion. While he never believed that Jesus would approve of abortion, Carter said his duties as president required that he comply with the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that declared most abortions a private matter between a woman and her physician. Because of his religious beliefs, however, he said he set out to impliment everything he could to minimize the need for abortion by liberalizing adoption laws and starting a program still in existence called Woman and Infant Children to help poor women care for their children after they are born.

Carter said he believes faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but he doesn’t necessarily believe that people who never have opportunity to hear the gospel are condemned to hell. He also said he feels “very strongly, in the eyes of God, women are equal to men.”

All this flies in the face of the "Mohler outlook."

Unfortunately, it flies in the face of solid Biblical hermeneutics and faith as well. Carter is a relativist when it comes to Christianity, making his own decisions about how to interpret and apply scripture. So you've delivered quite a backhanded compliment to Dr. Mohler.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Former President Jimmy Carter engages Al Mohler:

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7261/53/

Carter admitted to being “kind of selective” when it comes to the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality.

“I really turn almost exclusively to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned homosexuality at all as a sin,” Carter said. “He never condemned homosexuals and so I don’t condemn homosexuals. And our church, our little church in Plains, we don’t ask, when people come to join our church, if they’re gay or not. We don’t ordain, we don’t practice marriage between gay couples in our church, but that’s a Baptist privilege of autonomy of local churches.”

Carter said he had “one problem” in balancing his faith and public service while in office over the issue of abortion. While he never believed that Jesus would approve of abortion, Carter said his duties as president required that he comply with the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that declared most abortions a private matter between a woman and her physician. Because of his religious beliefs, however, he said he set out to impliment everything he could to minimize the need for abortion by liberalizing adoption laws and starting a program still in existence called Woman and Infant Children to help poor women care for their children after they are born.

Carter said he believes faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, but he doesn’t necessarily believe that people who never have opportunity to hear the gospel are condemned to hell. He also said he feels “very strongly, in the eyes of God, women are equal to men.”

All this flies in the face of the "Mohler outlook."

Unfortunately, it flies in the face of solid Biblical hermeneutics and faith as well. Carter is a relativist when it comes to Christianity, making his own decisions about how to interpret and apply scripture. So you've delivered quite a backhanded compliment to Dr. Mohler.

Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical Biblical

Sandy is Biblical.

CBF is not.

Give me a break.

Al Mohler was much more kind and gracious to Jimmy Carter than you. That ought to say something.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy----enjoy your misery being-----a biblioter!

You faith has hardly made your free and for that I'm real sorry.

[Sandy]

Yes, goodness, it's a whole lot easier to just rely on whatever principle of interpretation you want to in creating your own religion and studying your way through the Bible to justify it than it is to consider the fact that Jesus considered "the scriptures" of his day to be completely authoritative, and is part of the equation in their inspiration after his ascension.

Even if Jesus did come down firmly on some position or another, such as John 14:6, someone will explain it away by saying that those words really weren't his words. That's religion. You can have it.

Gene, I'm not sure what a "Biblioter" is, and I can't find the definition of it anywhere.

I think the last few posts you guys have put up here are a pretty clear example of the differences between the SBC and CBF, or at least some of CBF, and you've proven the contention of at least some of the leadership of the CR.

[Gene Scarborough]

Biblioloter: One who worships the printed word rather than the God who inspired that word.

[Sandy]

Biblioloter: One who worships the printed word rather than the God who inspired that word.

I believe that's spelled "Bibliolater," though I'm not sure that it is really an actual word. I figured that's probably what you meant, but thought that perhaps being a "Biblioter" was something else.

Holding to a belief that if God inspired the writing of the Bible, then it is accurate, authoritative and wholly inspired is not bibliolatry.

As far as I can tell, Jesus didn't actually write a single word of scripture. However, he was very clearly involved in inspiring every word of it. He confirmed his belief in the Old Testament while he was in the flesh with his disciples, by quoting from it, honoring it, and fulfilling it. A consistent interpretation of the New Testament, if it is "inspired by God," means that the recording of the words of Jesus, and the words of the other writers, were equally inspired. Interpretation, therefore, is a matter of determining what is a consistent message, corroborating the words of all the writers on the subject.

Carter claims to consider only Jesus when it comes to homosexuality, since Jesus is allegedly "silent" on the subject. But then, when it comes to the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, he ignores Jesus on the subject, and resorts to the authority of "I think...."

Dr. Mohler is right.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

It appears that you see the Bible as a level playing field with all things being on an equal footing.

Carter and I both see it as a mountain going up to the Gospels and all things after looking back with some variance in viewpoint depending on the letter writer or the story of the early Christians covered in Acts.

In this fashion we follow the guidelines of Southern Baptists before BF&M 2000. The statement then was the Bible is our guide and Christ is our creed. It was general, but specific enough to let Christ guide us over some creed made by man. That is what BF&M 2000 becomes---man made requirements not always following the spirit of Christ--particularly when it comes to women and their place in the faith.

[Sandy]

Sandy---

It appears that you see the Bible as a level playing field with all things being on an equal footing.

Carter and I both see it as a mountain going up to the Gospels and all things after looking back with some variance in viewpoint depending on the letter writer or the story of the early Christians covered in Acts.

In this fashion we follow the guidelines of Southern Baptists before BF&M 2000. The statement then was the Bible is our guide and Christ is our creed. It was general, but specific enough to let Christ guide us over some creed made by man. That is what BF&M 2000 becomes---man made requirements not always following the spirit of Christ--particularly when it comes to women and their place in the faith.

Carter clearly doesn't see the Gospels as a high point. Generally, he holds a "pick and choose" view. The gospels are a high point to him, an exclusive source when he wants to justify approval of homosexuality, but not a high point or authoritative when the words of Jesus convey his exclusivity as the only resolution to the problem of sinful humanity.

Obviously there is some variance in the viewpoint, but if you believe that the writers were "inspired" by God, how is it that some could be "more inspired" than others? And I would certainly agree that the Gospels are what the whole redemptive thread points to. But you can't ignore the rest of the story, the interpretive standard set by the early church during the Apostolic era, recorded in the rest of the New Testament. That's where you have the story of how the early church fleshed out the gospels, setting the standard for passing along the written record to the rest of the church until Jesus returns. God wanted us to see that, too, learn from it, and live by it.

The 1963 BFM made the statement that the Bible "has truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. The 1925 BFM is similar in its view of the scripture. It expresses the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility as clearly and concisely as any other. There's no context in the scripture for greater or lesser inspiration or authority, and no context to claim that the gospels either disagree with Paul, or that they somehow trump him. If something in the Bible trumps something else, then you don't have God's inspiration. I'm inclined to believe that Carter, and others who find themselves in his theological camp, do not accept that God inspired all of the Bible. They are in good company among a lot of Protestant Christians in this country, and among the few left in Europe. They're just not consistent with a traditional, historic Baptist view of the inspiration of the scripture.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

Now you are putting words into Carter's mouth!

You agree with Christ being the apex of the mountain, but can't hack that all is not equally inerrant---and with no mixture of error. Who decides when texts conflict which one is the "right one"

Any of us who have held a Nestle Greek Text and seen it's pages know the variants in the manuscripts. In several places the page contains 10% "reliable text" and 90% variant writings----so which one is the "inerrant word of God?" It is ludicrous to know the facts and use the "without error" description.

Inspired-----YES
Inerrant-----NO

Even the writers of the BF&M creed had to add "original manuscripts" to show they have some sense. Because we have not one single "origianal manuscript" the point is speculation ----so my professors at SEBTS were put through hell over something the fundies do not have!!!

Shame / foolishness / speculation / inquisition over cow manure

[Sandy]

You agree with Christ being the apex of the mountain, but can't hack that all is not equally inerrant---and with no mixture of error. Who decides when texts conflict which one is the "right one?

Where do any texts "conflict?" That's a straw man argument. So is your "variant text" argument. Essentially, with regard to "variant texts," translation resolves 99.9% of the issue. Comparing the texts of existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there are about 40 such "variants" that exist, and there's no "conflict" in resolving them. Most modern translators simply footnote them so that readers can see what the other texts say. Putting forth the idea that there are major conflicts that have to be resolved, and driving interpretation into the realm of the subjective, dependent on human reasoning rather than spiritual illlumination just waters it down and leads to false conclusions and heresy. It's exactly the sort of thing Paul warned the Corinthian church about.

The phrase that the Bible has, for its matter, truth without any mixture of error has been a part of Southern Baptist confessions of faith for as far back as they can be found, including prior to the conservative resurgence. Inspiration is neither subjective nor inconsistent.