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

[Gene Scarborough]

Let's take the KJV as an example, Sandy:

There are 2 accounts of Creation in it (and all other translations) because there are simply 2 documents which do not agree in the order of creation / the name used for God. If God dictated it, then why are there 2 different stories? Does not God know his own name?

Take ! Corinthians 13 and "love is not easily provoked." The word "easily" is not in the original manuscript because the translators feared the temper of the King! If it were a "dictated text" (with many still claiming the KJV is "God's Word"), then you have a "perfect inerrant" problem!

What you are ignoring is the hand of man in the writing of the Bible / deciding by Church Council what would be included and what is excluded / the simple difference between hand copied manuscripts / the absence of any "original autograph."

What is the problem with simply saying, "The Bible is INSPIRED?"

By the way, this is not that germain to the topic we are discussing and should have its own place elsewhere.

[Gene Scarborough]

Here is as heterosexual bunch of garbage I hope will be addressed at the Conference:

http://www.bpnews.net/

The evangelist, Sammy Nuckolls, was indicted in February in Mississippi on 13 counts of video voyeurism for filming women in private situations without their consent. Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years and will require Nuckolls to register as a sex offender. He has pleaded not guilty to the Mississippi charges.

According to sources familiar with Nuckolls' speaking schedule, he was being scheduled by an estimated 100 churches or groups per year.

Among those that have used Nuckolls were LifeWay Christian Resources' student camps, which terminated its relationship with Nuckolls when the charges were revealed last fall.

This guy appears to be a pervert driven by his desires and that is just as dangerous as any homosexual issue!

[Ed Pettibone]

Here is as heterosexual bunch of garbage I hope will be addressed at the Conference:

http://www.bpnews.net/

The evangelist, Sammy Nuckolls, was indicted in February in Mississippi on 13 counts of video voyeurism for filming women in private situations without their consent. Each count carries a maximum sentence of five years and will require Nuckolls to register as a sex offender. He has pleaded not guilty to the Mississippi charges.

According to sources familiar with Nuckolls' speaking schedule, he was being scheduled by an estimated 100 churches or groups per year.

Among those that have used Nuckolls were LifeWay Christian Resources' student camps, which terminated its relationship with Nuckolls when the charges were revealed last fall.

This guy appears to be a pervert driven by his desires and that is just as dangerous as any homosexual issue!

Ed: Gene are you suggesting that this particular case should be discussed at the upcoming conference or that the broad question of video voyeurism should be among the various topics? In my opinion the conference ( nor this thread) need not be bogged down discussing specific cases, especially.. those that are still in the judicial process.

A couple points. IMHO, Baptist Press should be commended for their coverage of this particular case. Note also that some churches and other organizations that employed Nuckolls had Background checks run on him and they had come back clear. Let this be a warning about depending on such reports exclusively.

[Gene Scarborough]

The sexual problem which, I hope, will merit discussion at the conference will be those obsessed with sex over those who see it as a normal part of life.

We should have no problems discussing a man who has plead guilty to his charges of video voyerism.

[Ed Pettibone]

The sexual problem which, I hope, will merit discussion at the conference will be those obsessed with sex over those who see it as a normal part of life.

We should have no problems discussing a man who has plead guilty to his charges of video isomerism.

Ed; Gene, what is the distinction you make between those obsessed with sex over those who see it as a normal part of life?

[Gene Scarborough]

It is like the preacher in Rocky Mount (son-in-law of Paige Patterson) having his sermon about the Belk's langerie ad in the Sunday paper. He was too obsessed with it and that bespeaks a hidden perversion rather than just seeing it as the same thing as the Sears-Roebuck catalogue section on women's undergarments.

I don't know if he could tolerate a 2-piece bathing suit at Myrtle Beach either. If you are averse to seeing any skin on a woman, you have a problem! The Puritans suffered from such and gave us many things to obsess over.

[William Thornton]

It is like the preacher in Rocky Mount (son-in-law of Paige Patterson) having his sermon about the Belk's langerie ad in the Sunday paper. He was too obsessed with it and that bespeaks a hidden perversion rather than just seeing it as the same thing as the Sears-Roebuck catalogue section on women's undergarments.

I don't know if he could tolerate a 2-piece bathing suit at Myrtle Beach either. If you are averse to seeing any skin on a woman, you have a problem! The Puritans suffered from such and gave us many things to obsess over.

Uh, Gene. You probably comment and refer to sex more than anyone on this forum. Does that "bespeak" some hidden perversion? I think not but think you far too loose with your attempt to insinuate the same for others.

[Gene Scarborough]

We are on the topic, William---your posted it and we are commenting!

I was just answering Ed's question with the reason why I posted what I did. My Psychology background simply makes me look beneath the surface when anyone is too focused on sexual matters---in a way which bespeaks a hidden demon.

[William Thornton]

We are on the topic, William---your posted it and we are commenting!

I was just answering Ed's question with the reason why I posted what I did. My Psychology background simply makes me look beneath the surface when anyone is too focused on sexual matters---in a way which bespeaks a hidden demon.

OK, have it your way. Maybe you do have some hidden sex perverson or demon.

[Gene Scarborough]

We all have our demons----mine are clearly fundamantelist conservatives who took over the SBC and do not want the CBF even addressing important current issues on sexual matters.

Meanwhile, they refuse to deal with perverts hurting innocent people pastoring local SBC churches = duh

The Pastor in Rocky Mount had his issues and would not admit to them---which is dangerous and I would not want my wife or daughter going to him for counseling.

[Ed Pettibone]

Gene Scarborough: " The Pastor in Rocky Mount had his issues and would not admit to them---which is dangerous and I would not want my wife or daughter going to him for counseling."

Ed: And Gene how long ago was this? And what does it have to do with the upcoming conference in Decatur?

[Sandy]

We all have our demons----mine are clearly fundamantelist conservatives who took over the SBC and do not want the CBF even addressing important current issues on sexual matters.

Meanwhile, they refuse to deal with perverts hurting innocent people pastoring local SBC churches = duh

Who in the SBC has stated that they "do not want CBF even addressing important current issues on sexual matters?" None of the comments here have suggested that. Al Mohler said nothing about not wanting CBF to address the issues, he simply pointed out that for them to move away from their current policy would be controversial, divisive, and would cost them support.

Would you please fill me in on CBF's specific policy, and polity, when it comes to dealing with the perverts in their pulpits? Does CBF have a system of clergy recognition and supervision that would allow them, as an organization, to deal with a local church or its ordained members in a way that is different than the SBC?

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy--- surely you are not that stupid as to not recognize the refusal of the SBC to formally deal with sexual molestation---and hear the chuckling evil hope on Mohler's part that this divides the CBF.

[Sandy]

Sandy--- surely you are not that stupid as to not recognize the refusal of the SBC to formally deal with sexual molestation---and hear the chuckling evil hope on Mohler's part that this divides the CBF.

I heard no chuckling. I heard him state a fact, that if certain individuals attempt to push CBF to change its policy toward funding of pro-gay and lesbian organizations, and change its hiring policy to include gays and lesbians, it will divide the organization. It's current executive director is opposed to the idea, and he is simply reflecting the position that most of its supporting churches have taken on the same issue. The coordinating council has been through several changes since the general assembly meeting that voted to defund the Baptist Peace Fellowship because of their gay-friendly position, but ultimately, it isn't likely that the congregations which make up the bulk of the fellowship's support have changed their position.

The SBC hasn't refused to formally deal with sexual molestation. Each of its agencies and entities have clear requirements for background checks, and would deal with it as Lifeway did in this situation. This individual will never again work for an SBC-supported entity. But as you well know, Gene, convention policy is not binding on the churches, and does not extend into realms of local church autonomy, a polity and practice that goes back well into the years before the conservative resurgence came along. CBF doesn't have a formal process for dealing with sexual molestation by the pastors and leaders of its churches, either, for exactly the same reason.

[KeithE]

Sandy--- surely you are not that stupid as to not recognize the refusal of the SBC to formally deal with sexual molestation---and hear the chuckling evil hope on Mohler's part that this divides the CBF.

I heard no chuckling. I heard him state a fact, that if certain individuals attempt to push CBF to change its policy toward funding of pro-gay and lesbian organizations, and change its hiring policy to include gays and lesbians, it will divide the organization. It's current executive director is opposed to the idea, and he is simply reflecting the position that most of its supporting churches have taken on the same issue. The coordinating council has been through several changes since the general assembly meeting that voted to defund the Baptist Peace Fellowship because of their gay-friendly position, but ultimately, it isn't likely that the congregations which make up the bulk of the fellowship's support have changed their position.

I find it amazing that a Christian denomination/organization would divide over such a minor issue. It gets no mention by Jesus and only scant mention by Paul and in the OT. Compare this to all the commands to love all, care for the poor/sick/leopards, do not judge or be like the Pharisees/teachers of the law. And btw, that judging is the motive for such anti-homosexual attitudes. If we had such exclusionary attitudes towards all sin/sinners, we would have no members. Many take the opportunity to strike at easy marks.

But stranger things have happened. I would hope that the CBF be Christian enough to weather any such storm (if it happens at all).

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---the SBC could choose to address the issue of perverts among it's ordained----but won't!!!

What more can I say, brother.

[Sandy]

Sandy---the SBC could choose to address the issue of perverts among it's ordained----but won't!!!

What more can I say, brother.

The "SBC" has no "ordained."

[Gene Scarborough]

So tell me: The SBC "can't do anything" about a molester, but gladly kick out a church ministering to gays---or one calling a female pastor

[Ed Pettibone]

So tell me: The SBC "can't do anything" about a molester, but gladly kick out a church ministering to gays---or one calling a female pastor

Ed: So Gene are you suggesting that if an SBC church has the misfortune of having a staff person who molest some one they (The church) should be "kicked" out of the SBC ? And Gene when and where has any church been dismissed from the SBC for simply ministering to gays? In every case that I am familiar with where a church has been "kicked" out of the SBC that action has been initiated by the association and has involved the church taking a stance in which they accept that Gays and Lesbians as no different than other members except in that their sexual preference is for a partner of the same sex. But then I doubt that there will be many if any SBC folk participating in the upcoming conference Sponsored by CBF & Mercer University and to be held at FBC Decatur Ga.

[Sandy]

So tell me: The SBC "can't do anything" about a molester, but gladly kick out a church ministering to gays---or one calling a female pastor

Apparently, SBC entities can indeed do something about a molester. Lifeway certainly did, and I would guess that information is now available to any other SBC entity, convention, or local church that the individual might try to work for, provided they run the background check and ask questions of his previous employers. That's really all that has to be done at any rate. Local church committees can obtain background checks through both the state police and the FBI on any candidate who comes across their radar screen. Perhaps the denomination could have some sort of database or "clearing house" with the names of individuals who had been convicted of any kind of sexual misconduct for churches to consult in their search process, but that seems to be redundant, given that they have that information at their disposal already.

So, if a church has ordained an individual in their past who has been involved in some kind of sexual misconduct, are they ultimately responsible for everything that person does across the course of their ministry career? I was ordained by a church in Kentucky more than 20 years ago, and have served and been a member of no less than five churches since then. I am still ordained, and it is likely that most of the 45,000 churches affiliated with the SBC would recognize that ordination, along with a fair number of Baptist churches of other denominations, or independent ones. There's no way that Kentucky congregation could have had a clue about what my future would be. Churches ordain members in good faith, knowing them well and trusting their call. They can't be held responsible for things that happen after those individuals leave their supervision.

The SBC, as a body, has a right to determine who makes up its membership. As a convention, it exists only during the time when the convention itself is in session. The convention followed the necessary procedures for making adjustments to its bylaws which define what it means to be "in friendly cooperation" with the convention. It does not "kick" churches out for "ministering to gays." It does allow for determining that a church isn't in friendly cooperation if it takes action which affirms or condones homosexual behavior, or treats it as if it is not sinful. To my knowledge, it has only made that determination in the case of one church, and I am not aware that any churches have been "kicked" out of the SBC for calling a female pastor.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

(1) A church which ordains an individual has their name behind that person for the rest of their ministry---and can (should) withdraw that Ordination if the person fails morally thereafter. Yours is just another excuse for turning your head on moral issues with anyone ordained.

(2) Give me another break on "kicking out." Calling it "withdrawing fellowship" is just another way of saying "you can't participate if you cross us."

[Ed Pettibone]

So tell me: The SBC "can't do anything" about a molester, but gladly kick out a church ministering to gays---or one calling a female pastor

Apparently, SBC entities can indeed do something about a molester. Lifeway certainly did, and I would guess that information is now available to any other SBC entity, convention, or local church that the individual might try to work for, provided they run the background check and ask questions of his previous employers. That's really all that has to be done at any rate. Local church committees can obtain background checks through both the state police and the FBI on any candidate who comes across their radar screen. Perhaps the denomination could have some sort of database or "clearing house" with the names of individuals who had been convicted of any kind of sexual misconduct for churches to consult in their search process, but that seems to be redundant, given that they have that information at their disposal already.

So, if a church has ordained an individual in their past who has been involved in some kind of sexual misconduct, are they ultimately responsible for everything that person does across the course of their ministry career? I was ordained by a church in Kentucky more than 20 years ago, and have served and been a member of no less than five churches since then. I am still ordained, and it is likely that most of the 45,000 churches affiliated with the SBC would recognize that ordination, along with a fair number of Baptist churches of other denominations, or independent ones. There's no way that Kentucky congregation could have had a clue about what my future would be. Churches ordain members in good faith, knowing them well and trusting their call. They can't be held responsible for things that happen after those individuals leave their supervision.

The SBC, as a body, has a right to determine who makes up its membership. As a convention, it exists only during the time when the convention itself is in session. The convention followed the necessary procedures for making adjustments to its bylaws which define what it means to be "in friendly cooperation" with the convention. It does not "kick" churches out for "ministering to gays." It does allow for determining that a church isn't in friendly cooperation if it takes action which affirms or condones homosexual behavior, or treats it as if it is not sinful. To my knowledge, it has only made that determination in the case of one church, and I am not aware that any churches have been "kicked" out of the SBC for calling a female pastor.

Ed: But Sandy you, will acknowledged that multiple churches across the SBC landscape have been disfellowshiped by associations where they have have long standing, for both ordaining women to ministry and for hiring ordained women, will you not.

When it comes to pastors or other church staff, I might agree with you when you say of the ordaining churches "They can't be held responsible for things that happens after those individuals leave their supervision" if you where to add (given they do not have any knowledge of said offenses). But then I would ask what is to keep a church that has been embarrassed by that minister due to his or her transgression while in their employee, from notifying each and every one of the churches which have ever employed that person, including the church that ordained them. And let me ask, in you opinion would a church that had dismissed a staff person due to appropriate sexual conduct be morally bound to share that information with another church which contacts them for references?

[Timothy Bonney]

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

Folks why spend time arguing with Sandy over who is "liberal" in the CBF. From my reading of Sandy's theology most Christians would be liberal compared to many of his expressed views. I'd be worried if Sandy didn't think I was a liberal.

[Sandy]

But Sandy you, will acknowledged that multiple churches across the SBC landscape have been disfellowshiped by associations where they have have long standing, for both ordaining women to ministry and for hiring ordained women, will you not.

Associations are not the SBC. They are independent and autonomous as well, and quite diverse when it comes to defining their membership. There are some who have severed ties with churches that have called ordained women, others still have churches in their fellowship with female pastors. I remember being absolutely amazed to read of one instance, somewhere in the deep South, where an association did not allow women to attend its annual meeting as messengers, while there are other associations that are moderated by women. They are almost as diverse as the churches that make them up.

When it comes to pastors or other church staff, I might agree with you when you say of the ordaining churches "They can't be held responsible for things that happens after those individuals leave their supervision" if you where to add (given they do not have any knowledge of said offenses). But then I would ask what is to keep a church that has been embarrassed by that minister due to his or her transgression while in their employee, from notifying each and every one of the churches which have ever employed that person, including the church that ordained them. And let me ask, in you opinion would a church that had dismissed a staff person due to appropriate sexual conduct be morally bound to share that information with another church which contacts them for references?

I'd say you have probably described the best possible way that Southern Baptist churches have at their disposal for dealing with incidents such as this. I think that once the incident has been confirmed, either by confession or conviction, the current church should report it to all previous churches, including the ordaining congregation via a letter that they keep on file. Notifying the director of missions of the association, and the state convention's church-minister relations office, if they have one, would also be absolutely appropriate. And of course, any church inquiring for a reference should be informed. It seems that the problem is usually on the other end, with church committees that don't go very far checking references or contacting previous employers.

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

You have described a significant change in SBC and Associational polity from the 50-70's. IN the past, Autonomy, allowed for cooperation without judgmentalism. Now it is all about "who is doing what we tell them to."

This is an absolute departure from that which made the SBC grow and prosper pre-1979. It is getting worse and does not help fellowship nor cooperation over missions.