Making practical sense of the Sexuality conference

[William Thornton]

Doesn't look like any of you are interested in starting a discussion on this...so....

I need the help of my mod/lib friends here.

From Jenelle Williams Paris presentation:

ATLANTA (ABP) – Christians no longer share a consensus that sex outside of marriage is always wrong and must find new ways to deal with that reality besides splitting into smaller and smaller groups over issues like homosexuality and contraception, a keynote speaker said April 19 in the opening session of a [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Mercer University’s Center for Theology and Public Life.

Protestant organizations “have pursued organizational purity” by dividing into factions and fighting about sexual ethics. She said it is time for Christians to recognize their “internal pluralism” and stop trying to force each other into a consensus that no longer exists.

Younger Christians tend to be saying that things like homosexuality and pornography aren’t as “icky” as they used to be, she said, representing “a strong shift toward tolerance.”

What, a church that is welcoming and affirming, or just welcoming, of pornography, homosexuality, and adultery?
The golden value is consensus, not Biblical truth?
What is the recommended way for Christians to deal with sex outside of marriage?

Just asking.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Wlliam like I said in the CBF dissent on the [Baptist] Conf on Sexuality and Covenant, thread Where Gene and I where disscussing the conference on Saturday.

“I have just finished viewing clips 7 through 13. Some of the presenters had very good delivery, a few where some what of struggle to listen to for a half hour (at least one was slightly over that and some slightly under), due not to the content but to the delivery. I think the each session could be the basis for a good discussion, for other groups but I would like to be the one selecting the facilitators for such discussions. If it is permissible I hope to do so at least once in our association. I was disappointed that thus far I have heard no dialogue it has been much more a series of monologues. Clip 8 the 2nd that I listened to was an interview of the speaker in clip 7 but was not true dialogue. That interview was not on the schedule but had been inserted as a time filler.

I will add I did not hear any thing that I have not heard or read before.

I would agree that the lecture from which you have selectively quoted was not the greatest way to start the conference.

And over there, I questioned Genes idea that there was nothing controversial.

But it should be noted the speakers where setting the stage for discussions that followed and sadly we do not have video of the discussions. Having been in the Break out session of the CBF Assembly in Charlotte that is referenced in the ABP story to which you linked I will say of the conference presenters all but perhaps one, seem to be much softer on sexual deviations. Note my early review was deliberaly an attempt to stay neutral until the conference was over. And as for that first speaker remember Gushee had promised homosexuality was not the only topic to be discussed and she delivered.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I haven't listened to all the presentations and probably won't.

But, of those that I did listen to, I will say that the ABP and Baptist Standard reports don't really capture all of the points that were made.

I'd say if you were to listen to any 3: I'd start with Coleman Fannin, Cody Sanders and Sharyn Dowd.

Sanders - who is gay - had an extremely impressive presentation style and substance. Coleman's was like listening to a paper presentation at a conference. A little dry. But his was the "traditional" perspective. He may have been the only person to offer that perspective. I'm not sure. Sharyn Dowd made jokes for the first 10 minutes. So that was a little humorous.

If you're only going to listen to one, try Sanders. You'll have much to write about. He didn't steer clear of politics (rightly so IMO) either. Big fan of that style of homiletics. A well-trained TCU guy.

[Dave Roberts]

I'm waiting to talk with two close friends who were there as to how they perceived the conference.

[Neil Heath]

I'm waiting to talk with two close friends who were there as to how they perceived the conference.

Me too, Dave. I have a good friend who led some group dialogue sessions, and I want to hear what she says.

As for the quotes William used, it sounds to me like she was saying this is what she sees and hears from Christians, more a reporting of "what's out there" than advocacy for any position. And if she's reading things accurately, then I'll bet it was a good way to get some discussion started in the small groups.

Neil

[Ed Pettibone]

I'm waiting to talk with two close friends who were there as to how they perceived the conference.

Me too, Dave. I have a good friend who led some group dialogue sessions, and I want to hear what she says.

As for the quotes William used, it sounds to me like she was saying this is what she sees and hears from Christians, more a reporting of "what's out there" than advocacy for any position. And if she's reading things accurately, then I'll bet it was a good way to get some discussion started in the small groups.

Neil

Ed; Neil, I would like to think that is what she was doing but having listened to her presentation and the interview of her, I am convinced that hers is an advocacy position.

Re the conference The Texas Standard offers

“Many people and congregations lack good models and useful tools to respectfully engage this conversation,” said Rick Bennett, director of missional congregations for the Atlanta-based Fellowship. “We will attempt to provide both.”

“I think it’s important for us to gather in worship, pray the questions, communicate with one another, listen deeply to everyone and be ever mindful that none of us has all the truth,” Bennett said.

I did not see the communication with one another, in the first days presentations. As I said in my first reaction and was confirmed by Aaron Weaver, One participant (Fanin Sp) did lean further away from advocating a blanket adaptation to cultural "norms" than any of the other speakers.

It never ceases to amaze me to hear those who support such adaptation holding up the"Civil Rights movement" as a model when that movement was just the opposite in it we confronted the cultural norm of white supremacy, nation wide but most evident in the south. Now a significant organization found largely in the south presents a panel of people supporting sexual license that for years has been more publicly prevalent in the north and kept in the shadows in the south.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I'm waiting to talk with two close friends who were there as to how they perceived the conference.

Me too, Dave. I have a good friend who led some group dialogue sessions, and I want to hear what she says.

As for the quotes William used, it sounds to me like she was saying this is what she sees and hears from Christians, more a reporting of "what's out there" than advocacy for any position. And if she's reading things accurately, then I'll bet it was a good way to get some discussion started in the small groups.

Neil

Ed; Neil, I would like to think that is what she was doing but having listened to her presentation and the interview of her, I am convinced that hers is an advocacy position.

Re the conference The Texas Standard offers

“Many people and congregations lack good models and useful tools to respectfully engage this conversation,” said Rick Bennett, director of missional congregations for the Atlanta-based Fellowship. “We will attempt to provide both.”

“I think it’s important for us to gather in worship, pray the questions, communicate with one another, listen deeply to everyone and be ever mindful that none of us has all the truth,” Bennett said.

I did not see the communication with one another, in the first days presentations. As I said in my first reaction and was confirmed by Aaron Weaver, One participant (Fanin Sp) did lean further away from advocating a blanket adaptation to cultural "norms" than any of the other speakers.

It never ceases to amaze me to hear those who support such adaptation holding up the"Civil Rights movement" as a model when that movement was just the opposite in it we confronted the cultural norm of white supremacy, nation wide but most evident in the south. Now a significant organization found largely in the south presents a panel of people supporting sexual license that for years has been more publicly prevalent in the north and kept in the shadows in the south.

Here is an article from Andrew Walker, a conservative and writer for the IRD.

I've known Andrew "a little bit" for a year or two now. Throughout the entire conference, we exchanged numerous e-mails. He was there for the conference as a reporter. I was here in Waco, watching most of the videos as they were posted online.

Andrew is obviously biased. Who isn't on this subject? There's no authentic neutrality when it comes to homosexuality, IMO.

Except for ONE word-choice of his, I thought it was a rather fair report-analysis from a conservative perspective. Not a hatchet job at all. I base my thoughts on what I've heard from others, the videos and following the conversation LIVE on Twitter.

From the videos I watched (and I watched most), the conference failed to be "balanced." Coleman Fannin - [I very much dislike his love for Catholic theology that was evident throughout his presentation and the basis for his suggested solution] - was pretty much out there by himself. I didn't hear others present a straight-forward "traditional" perspective of celibacy in singleness and heterosexual marriage, etc. When I saw the speaker line-up, I expected to hear that "traditional" perspective from a couple additional individuals. Those presentations surprised me and it would be difficult to categorize those neatly in the popular "welcoming & affirming" vs. "traditional"

Now, what was said during the small groups? That would be interesting to know.

Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that if you were interesting in seeing some sort of move away (to whatever extent) from the "traditional" perspective, you were probably more likely to attend the conference. Given the Twitter conversation and loud applause for Cody Sanders and awkwardness during Coleman's presentation, I got the impression that the majority was much closer to the perspective of Cody than Coleman.

Also, I'm not sure how Gushee thought he could avoid the political element. When you invite a gay minister in a covenant relationship with his partner, is it reasonable to think that the subject of gay rights, specifically marriage equality, is not going to come up? Of course it did come up. It's hard to talk about themes of "equality" and "justice" and not mention the lack thereof for same-sex couples in most states.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Aaron Would I be correct or even close in guessing that your surprise at the position taken by two of the speakers was due to their age?

And was the one word used by Andrew Walker that you found problematic, his repeated reference to CBF as the "denomination" ? From only having seen the posted Videos from the conference, his comments seemed to be spot on, although at the outside edge of the spot a few times. I do wish there was some way of knowing how many of the attendees in Atlanta had been at the breakout session in NC.

It will be interesting to see how the reaction to the views made public will play out at this years Assembly. Unfortunately we will not be their so we are looking to you and other to keep us posted. One more word directly about last weeks conference, M Browning seemed to me to be the wrong person to focus on embodiment. And be cause it is a bit snide I considered saying nothing but I am trying to be honest in my reactions. And honestly I will be disappointed if there is not something of a groundswell of protest at the Assembly.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

No, age had nothing to do with it. What I personally knew about a couple of the speakers from a handful of years ago made me think they would represent a "traditional" perspective. That didn't happen. I suspect Coleman was surprised to find himself in that position.

[Ed Pettibone]

No, age had nothing to do with it. What I personally knew about a couple of the speakers from a handful of years ago made me think they would represent a "traditional" perspective. That didn't happen. I suspect Coleman was surprised to find himself in that position.

Ed; It is good to know that some of the younger generation haven't jumped on the cultural band wagon.

[Stephen Fox]

Fannin is a good place to start:

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7328/53/

And it looks to me like ABP is doing a pretty thorough report

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Let me clarify:

My personal theology with regard to this subject is much closer than that of Cody Sanders than Coleman Fannin.

I just tend to think that if your aim is to have a balanced conference, there should have been more clearly traditional voices represented.

I'm a fan of what I call the "Campolo model." Tony vs. Peggy. Anyone who has ever listened on tape, cd, or in-person the Campolos discuss homosexuality know where each one stands at the end of the "conversation." Both are very clear and explicit about their convictions. There's no desire to achieve some confusing "third way" or "new way" that is theologically confusing. Tony and Peggy are very very clear about what they believe. I greatly appreciate that style.

I heard a couple presentations where I was left wondering what the speaker believes.

As to Fannin, much of his presentation was an attack on moderate Baptists who have emphasized concepts like individual freedom and local church autonomy. Fannin appealed to "Tradition" (not the Bible) as a way to navigate sexuality questions. Rather than turning to Baptist voices for possible solutions, Fannin praised the Roman Catholic Church and asked listeners to check out Catholic theology.

Lord knows if I'm looking for answers about sex-related questions, the last place I'm going to turn to is the Catholic Church with its celibacy requirement for priests, artificial birth control prohibition, ban on women as clergy and child sex scandals (and the cover up).

Not saying Baptists have all the answers. I'm just saying the Catholic Church definitely does not.

[William Thornton]

This quote from the report of Andrew Walker:

The fall-out of the conference, it seems, is uncertain. But those in attendance agreed that the conference, in the least, laid the intellectual foundation necessary for pro-LGBT advocates to gain momentum within the denomination, despite repeated proclamations that the conference had no intention to direct the affairs of the denomination. Conference organizers were careful to note that presentations were not to be interpreted as being a CBF endorsement.

Is there any serious CBFer who is dissuaded of the accuracy of the paragraph above?

[Stephen Fox]

Here, I think the Alliance of Baptists is a great safety valve for the CBF.

I would much rather be in an association like the CBF than I would be trying to explain Richard Land and Nelson Price to thinking High school seniors and twenty somethings in my church.

I would not be surprised to see Jonathan Merritt, for instance become affiliated with something like a CBF congregation in a few years, if that helps Thornton get to his soundbyte bottom line on this convocation.
Thornton should be called on to explain the pilgrimage of the fellow in Chapter Two of Giberson and Stephens The Anointed from Nearby Statham, Prince Avenue in Athens.
Likewise Ross Douthat's Bad Religion; Douthat I have to believe can make more sense of CBF than he can now of Bryant and Land and Russ Moore's SBC

CBF has much more to offer that fellow and the millions like him than the SBC which Thornton still services.
In all kindness and candor looking for the day when In right minds we sit down together at the table for Good BBQ and good Fellowship.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

This quote from the reportof Andrew Walker:

The fall-out of the conference, it seems, is uncertain. But those in attendance agreed that the conference, in the least, laid the intellectual foundation necessary for pro-LGBT advocates to gain momentum within the denomination, despite repeated proclamations that the conference had no intention to direct the affairs of the denomination. Conference organizers were careful to note that presentations were not to be interpreted as being a CBF endorsement.

Is there any serious CBFer who is dissuaded of the accuracy of the paragraph above?

Nope.

And I think the conference opened itself up to this type of legitimate criticism by not having "balance" in perspectives presented. The "intellectual foundation" laid was one for the CBF to move away from the position of Daniel Vestal. Now, I'm not where this "movement" stops. I'm sure the participants have a diversity of views on that. However, the sentiment at the conference seemed to be a move away from Vestal and toward "something else" (not sure if that "something else" is the Alliance's affirming position though). That might be a bridge too far.

A couple speakers I heard talked a good bit about "welcoming." I didn't hear much about affirming. Cody Sander's presentation was not a case for affirmation. His was based on the assumption that same-sex relationships should already be affirmed and here's what heterosexuals can learn from such relationships.

[KeithE]

Doesn't look like any of you are interested in starting a discussion on this...so....

I need the help of my mod/lib friends here.

From Jenelle Williams Paris presentation:

ATLANTA (ABP) – Christians no longer share a consensus that sex outside of marriage is always wrong and must find new ways to deal with that reality besides splitting into smaller and smaller groups over issues like homosexuality and contraception, a keynote speaker said April 19 in the opening session of a [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Mercer University’s Center for Theology and Public Life.

Protestant organizations “have pursued organizational purity” by dividing into factions and fighting about sexual ethics. She said it is time for Christians to recognize their “internal pluralism” and stop trying to force each other into a consensus that no longer exists.

Just asking.

Wrt to sex outside of “marriage”, it depends on what is meant by marriage. If marriage means a true love and commitment, I’m fine will the traditional prohibition. But if it means a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony, I have a hard time allowing such events be the dividing line. Something more substantially of the heart is required. After all God looks at the heart. Anyone can go through a ceremony but not all make the sacrifice to sincerely promise a life-long commitment. Oddly, a civil ceremony has more concrete strings attached (e.g. money) than a religious one (even so called “covenant marriages”). I think some humans want a ceremony so that they will be able to pin scarlet letters on people.

But however one looks at this matter, Ms Paris is right on about organizational purity demands causing unholy factions and fighting over sexual ethics. Internal pluralism (i.e. tolerance of belief on this subject) should be church practice.

I know of a cohabiting couple who want to go to a church but say (paraphrasing as much as I can remember) 'sure- ah uh, we can just walk in there with our 4 year old and say we live at the same address but differing last names and be accepted by all'. I told him that he ought to give WHBC a chance and see (I actually don’t know what would happen). This guy is a close co-worker about 30 yrs old and grew up in Tim Lahaye’s Scott Memorial BC in San Diego.

[William Thornton]

Baptist Press, I would note, is carrying Andrew Walker's article that I linked above.

[William Thornton]

Here, I think the Alliance of Baptists is a great safety valve for the CBF.

Good line, Stephen. Your best in a while.

I would much rather be in an association like the CBF than I would be trying to explain Richard Land and Nelson Price to thinking High school seniors and twenty somethings in my church.

Are you going to another church these days?

[Ed Pettibone]

Doesn't look like any of you are interested in starting a discussion on this...so....

I need the help of my mod/lib friends here.

From Jenelle Williams Paris presentation:

ATLANTA (ABP) – Christians no longer share a consensus that sex outside of marriage is always wrong and must find new ways to deal with that reality besides splitting into smaller and smaller groups over issues like homosexuality and contraception, a keynote speaker said April 19 in the opening session of a [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and Mercer University’s Center for Theology and Public Life.

Protestant organizations “have pursued organizational purity” by dividing into factions and fighting about sexual ethics. She said it is time for Christians to recognize their “internal pluralism” and stop trying to force each other into a consensus that no longer exists.

Just asking.

Wrt to sex outside of “marriage”, it depends on what is meant by marriage. If marriage means a true love and commitment, I’m fine will the traditional prohibition. But if it means a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony, I have a hard time allowing such events be the dividing line. Something more substantially of the heart is required. After all God looks at the heart. Anyone can go through a ceremony but not all make the sacrifice to sincerely promise a life-long commitment. Oddly, a civil ceremony has more concrete strings attached (e.g. money) than a religious one (even so called “covenant marriages”). I think some humans want a ceremony so that they will be able to pin scarlet letters on people.

But however one looks at this matter, Ms Paris is right on about organizational purity demands causing unholy factions and fighting over sexual ethics. Internal pluralism (i.e. tolerance of belief on this subject) should be church practice.

I know of a cohabiting couple who want to go to a church but say (paraphrasing as much as I can remember) 'sure- ah uh, we can just walk in there with our 4 year old and say we live at the same address but differing last names and be accepted by all'. I told him that he ought to give WHBC a chance and see (I actually don’t know what would happen). This guy is a close co-worker about 30 yrs old and grew up in Tim Lahaye’s Scott Memorial BC in San Diego.

Ed: Keith I agree that marriage requires something more substantially of the heart than a license from the state and standing before some government authorized individual and going through a pre- planned litany. But there is nothing about requiring the license and ceremony that precludes there being something more substantial.

And how exactly do organizational purity demands cause unholy factions and fighting over sexual ethics? In deed people may fuss and feud about such demands but I believe that it is the hardness of hart that causes the fussing and feuding not a set of demands. And are there no beliefs about this subject outside your bounds of tolerance? Through out the conference the buzz words where covenant and monogamy perhaps so are we to assume that precludes an "Open Marriage"? Or is that ""up to the couple involved"? But If we limit numbers why not limit gender? You friend and his beloved along with their child would be welcome to worship at our church any time and shoot I know a number of married professional couples who have different last names. But The bigger question is why do they not jump through the hoops. And where he previously attended church is of no real importance.

[Sandy]

This quote from the reportof Andrew Walker:

The fall-out of the conference, it seems, is uncertain. But those in attendance agreed that the conference, in the least, laid the intellectual foundation necessary for pro-LGBT advocates to gain momentum within the denomination, despite repeated proclamations that the conference had no intention to direct the affairs of the denomination. Conference organizers were careful to note that presentations were not to be interpreted as being a CBF endorsement.

Is there any serious CBFer who is dissuaded of the accuracy of the paragraph above?

Nope.

And I think the conference opened itself up to this type of legitimate criticism by not having "balance" in perspectives presented. The "intellectual foundation" laid was one for the CBF to move away from the position of Daniel Vestal. Now, I'm not where this "movement" stops. I'm sure the participants have a diversity of views on that. However, the sentiment at the conference seemed to be a move away from Vestal and toward "something else" (not sure if that "something else" is the Alliance's affirming position though). That might be a bridge too far.

A couple speakers I heard talked a good bit about "welcoming." I didn't hear much about affirming. Cody Sander's presentation was not a case for affirmation. His was based on the assumption that same-sex relationships should already be affirmed and here's what heterosexuals can learn from such relationships.

Really? In spite of all the conversation prior to the conference saying that CBF doesn't do things this way, and that such "conferences" aren't intentionally planned to change CBF policy?

I don't think CBF's current position is just Daniel Vestal's. So what further steps do you forsee in changing CBF policy?

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Sandy, I am not sure what in Aarons post you are questioning with your "Really?" Indeed there where some pre-conference statements statements that such "conferences" aren't intentionally planned to change CBF policy. And and it is still not determined if this one will change CBF policy. In fact I see the possibility of a backlash to this conference that could reinforce the current policy on hiring .

Also when you talk about "all the conversation prior to the conference saying that CBF doesn't do things this way" Let me ask, who said "CBF doesn't do thing" - what way. In reality you and I do not know how CBF did what ever was done leading up to this conference nor at the conference. In not knowing, I am pointing a finger at no one in particular, when I say the selection of speakers could have been better.

As Aaron W,. has said there was no balance, and I saw no evidence of any real effort having been toward trying to provide providing balance. Most professional organization sponsoring such conferences advertize a call for papers and a committee reads and selects what they believe to be the most informative. Many conference I have attended you get at least an abstract of the papers to be presented to assist in your listing and in preparing questions ahead of time. Often there is a respondent to each presentation. As it came off to we in the hinterlands, able to see only the presenters (not even hearing the introductions) it sounded like a pro sexual revolution rally fast forwarded from the 60's and 70's with one speaker thrown in to justify a claim that it was not one sided. Had this conference been presented by the Alliance I would probably not be saying any thing because it would be nothing new for them.

I haven't even heard our most supportive folk in ABCNYS's handful of Welcoming and Affirming churches, get as radical as some of the folk at this conference. It was not reflective of the majority of folk that I have met at CBF assemblies and state and Regional meetings over the past twenty plus years.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

I really don't know what you are responding to, Sandy. So it's hard to respond.

As to Vestal, I'm aware the CBF's current position is not just Vestal's. That certainly wasn't my suggestion. However, Vestal has been a good spokesperson for that perspective and defender of the CBF's policy.

Like I said, the conference opened itself up to legitimate criticism due to the lack of balance. It's hard to refute certain accusations in light of the lack of balance.

When you have a CBF conference on sexuality and very few (perhaps only one presenter?) reflect the perspective embodied in the CBF's homosexuality policy, then there's a problem, IMO.

I enjoyed quite a few of the presentations. I also recognize that I'm more "liberal" on this subject than the overwhelming overwhelming majority of CBFers that I'm around here in Texas. Their perspective - which has to remain the perspective of the majority in the CBF - was underrepresented at this conference.

[Ed Pettibone]

I really don't know what you are responding to, Sandy. So it's hard to respond.

As to Vestal, I'm aware the CBF's current position is not just Vestal's. That certainly wasn't my suggestion. However, Vestal has been a good spokesperson for that perspective and defender of the CBF's policy.

Like I said, the conference opened itself up to legitimate criticism due to the lack of balance. It's hard to refute certain accusations in light of the lack of balance.

When you have a CBF conference on sexuality and very few (perhaps only one presenter?) reflect the perspective embodied in the CBF's homosexuality policy, then there's a problem, IMO.

I enjoyed quite a few of the presentations. I also recognize that I'm more "liberal" on this subject than the overwhelming overwhelming majority of CBFers that I'm around here in Texas. Their perspective - which has to remain the perspective of the majority in the CBF - was underrepresented at this conference.

Ed; Thank you for your honest evaluation of the conference or at least as much as has been made public. As I said in another post I want to try a couple of those presentations out on some of my ABC friends from both sides of the aisle.

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Here is a column up at ABP from someone who attended which says the same thing: a lack of "traditional" voices.

In our break-out and plenary sessions I heard Christians calling for greater compassion to unmarried adults, divorced persons, sex-trafficking victims and those in the LGBTQ community. What I did not hear were many traditionalist voices speaking to these same realities. Of speakers who presented on the matter of LGBTQ inclusion, I heard only two openly claim that they believe sex must occur within the context of heterosexual marriage.

I didn't listen to all of the speakers. So, I guess I missed the other "traditional" speaker in addition to Coleman Fannin.

[Sandy]

"Laying an intellectual foundation for pro LGBT advocates to gain momentum in the denomination" is the specific phrase in Andrew Walker's article that prompts my question and comment.

There was a long discussion about the intentions of the conference planners using the conference as a launching pad to get some changes made in CBF policy regarding its position on employing individuals of homosexual orientation. It's just a conference on Baptist views of human sexuality, I was told, not overly focused on LGBT issues, not aimed at, or necessarily connected to CBF. Just some Baptists getting together to talk. And the presenters represented a wide diversity of perspectives, including traditional Christian perspectives, not just one view. Now, in the analysis, I hear one person saying that the foundation for bringing about change on behalf of LGBT advocates within the denomination was a positive result of the conference, and that the slate of presenters was slanted toward one particular position.

In other words, several individuals who are influential in CBF, and who want to see the fellowship reverse its policy regarding hiring individuals of homosexual orientation, called a conference, brought in a slate of like minded presenters, sprinkled with a few people from a more traditional background to give the appearance of fairness, went heavy on the presenters and light on the dialogue, and while putting forward the disclaimer about not being a CBF endorsement, proclaimed the laying of an intellectual foundation to make the kind of changes in CBF they want to see.

Deja vu.