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

[Gene Scarborough]

Are we going to get back on track or not????

[Timothy Bonney]

Even though the MMPI showed Timothy to want security, the UMC certainly provides more than the Baptist system.

I didn't choose the UMC for security Gene. I never had trouble getting an ABC church. Doctrine and polity were at issue for me.

[Gene Scarborough]

If I had my ministerial career to do over, I would have gone to Chandler instead of SEBTS and enjoyed the protection of a DS when it comes to pastoring a local UMC church.

Baptists are at risk at all times---and that risk involves biblical integrity vs. pleasing the powers that be in local churches!

[Timothy Bonney]

True Gene. But what got me about the results was that I had resigned my church without a place to go with no promise from the UMC that they had a place for me. I was only going to get a church if a church had an opening which they felt I fit and which there was not a pastor with a guarantee that also fit the position.

Once a person is an Elder in Full Connection you have guaranteed appointment. In my situation as a Provisional Member of the conference I have to be reviewed annually by the Board of Ordained Ministry to maintain my status until I earn full conference membership.

Also, the General Conference is meeting this month and may eliminate so called guaranteed appointment because many believe it is no longer workable since there are in many places more UMC clergy than churches among other issues. That doesn't bother me because I've never had a guarantee of a church in my life anyway.

Anyway, as a person who has stuck his neck out for unpopular ideas in more than one denomination being called caution annoyed me.

[Gene Scarborough]

I call is "walking by faith" and have had the same experience of Abraham!

Those of us who walk by faith rather than sight find proof that God takes care of us!

I have contacted the DS in Greenville, NC, to see if a small rural church needs an interim or pastor. One of my Baptist classmates is having a great time in another part of NC pastoring the rural church in his retirement. Unfortunately, the churches in this area are covered.

The same is true of the Baptist Association as I contacted them. My problem with them is I am known as one not in agreement with the takeover and it's ways. No problem---if I can't be honest, I don't want to play games with Baptists

[Gene Scarborough]

Bo Prosser is doing Facebook feeds from the Conference on Sexuality---they make good sense and deal more with marriage and fidelity than homosexuality.

Is there anyone out there actually attending this time of insight and fellowship???????????

[Gene Scarborough]

I am finding this link to the Conference and hope it is useful:

http://www.thefellowship.info/conference

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: I want to thank Gene for locating and posting the Link to the conference. 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.

How is this for a neutral review. Trying hard to be

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

[Gene Scarborough]

Glad you are checking it out, Ed. I had too busy a day yesterday to find the time, but hope to today.

Your review helps me to make up my mind to spend the time = thanks

This is the first article I find on the "controversial conference"----and it isn't controversial at all:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7330/53/

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Gene writes "This is the first article I find on the "controversial conference"----and it isn't controversial at all:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7330/53/"

And I have to agree the article is straight forward as to what David G. said but I have an idea that when they started unpacking it in the breakout session there was some dissent. And in the close he did seem to give only a nod to what most of the other speakers had given approval, as to homosexuality.

[Gene Scarborough]

I'm having trouble with the video program so I haven't seen any of the other sessions.

Is your above statemement based on your viewing overnight, Ed?

[Ed Pettibone]

I'm having trouble with the video program so I haven't seen any of the other sessions.

Is your above statemement based on your viewing overnight, Ed?

Ed: No Gene, I viewed each clip before 10:PM last evening and they are running fine for me right now 9:18 A.M. 4/21

Guhsee's comment that I referred to is where ABP says "Gushee said he doesn’t think the main issue facing the church today is which groups of people are to be viewed as eligible to make covenants. The main issue is to rescue the very practice of covenant before it disappears forever, not only in society but in our own house, he said."

I hope to days session are going to be shown also.
Although I will not get to see them live as we have a deacons meeting this morning.
Note my reference to breakout sessions in my first post, that i presume is where the true dialogue was to happen. I would love to hear that.

[Gene Scarborough]

My friend, Bo Prosser, offers a summation to the Conference:

http://cbfportal.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/reflections-for-a-powerful-weekend/

Over the two and half days, there were 7 Plenary speakers, covenant groups that met several times for conversation and sharing following the presentations, silence following each plenary for silent meditation, a very moving concert, and a lot of informal sharing and late night reflecting.

There were no discussions about politics, no votes, no moves to change CBF policy, no coercion by anyone to accept or agree. This was a time to listen, reflect, learn, and explore a series of DIFFICULT and controversial topics. At times we were affirmed, stretched, comforted, uncomfortable, challenged, and blessed!

It sounds like those wishing for a failure are badly disappointed!!!

Click on the links in the article for many of the speakers' presentations.

[Sandy]

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.

The "intellectual foundation" laid was one for the CBF to move away from the position of Daniel Vestal.

Nothing official appears to be voted on, but it is clear that laying a foundation for making a change in CBF policy was clearly on some minds.

[Ed Pettibone]

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.

The "intellectual foundation" laid was one for the CBF to move away from the position of Daniel Vestal.

Nothing official appears to be voted on, but it is clear that laying a foundation for making a change in CBF policy was clearly on some minds.

Ed: Sandy, will you unpack that comment for us?

And Aaron, I an not willing to concede that this conference would meet my understanding for having laid an "intellectual standard" There was a series of educated folk with theories that have floated in academic circles for 40 plus years. But very little if any thing I could identify as original thought . Also I heard every bit as much appeal to emotionality as I did to rationality. A lot of here is what folk are doing if you like it or not, so get used to it. To me that is not intellectualism.

I picked this up at Askvile by Amazon; Aldous Huxley once remarked, that' an intellectual is a person who, by adolescence, had discovered something more interesting than sex." I believe everyone speaking at last weeks conference is beyond adolescence.

A few of them provided a painful memory of the professors note on a term paper that I wrote (40 years ago), in a class titled Educational Theory. I was pleased to see a B+, but Dr. Weatherford's note read "A very good Paper if you understood the citations you provided." I was sure he knew that I could hardly scratch the surface on most of what I had quoted. When I tried to confess he said it was still worth a B+ otherwise I would have given you an A.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

I see you are having more trouble than most admitting we have much to learn about sexuality in the year 2012.

You are hating even the "possibility" that you could be wrong and the Bible is over-stating the nature of male and female as if it were a clear either/or.

If your professor heard you in class stumbling around as you spoke, he was probably telling your the truth: There is "'knowledge" and there is "understanding." Sometimes the two are not one and the same.

The scientific method requires some hypothesis and then studies to prove or disprove them. Even the studies can land you where you began and, too often, even scientists try to prove themselves to be accurate with fake studies.

Some things just remain a mystery and have no clear answer. I see the homosexual thing as such.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

I see you are having more trouble than most admitting we have much to learn about sexuality in the year 2012.

You are hating even the "possibility" that you could be wrong and the Bible is over-stating the nature of male and female as if it were a clear either/or.

If your professor heard you in class stumbling around as you spoke, he was probably telling your the truth: There is "'knowledge" and there is "understanding." Sometimes the two are not one and the same.

The scientific method requires some hypothesis and then studies to prove or disprove them. Even the studies can land you where you began and, too often, even scientists try to prove themselves to be accurate with fake studies.

Some things just remain a mystery and have no clear answer. I see the homosexual thing as such.

Ed: And again who are the We who you see as having much to lern about sexuality in 2012. Would you agree that some of us know a lot more about it than some others? And how do you arrive at the conclusion that I am "hating any thing" You obviously can not read my mind.

And what makes you think that Dr. Wetherford may have heard me "stumbling around"? I was talking about a written paper that I submitted to him. A paper in which indeed I had used material that I had to little background to truly understand. But yet I had produced a better than average paper in his studied opinion. I have no doubt that he was "telling the truth.

So Gene what do you know about homosexuality? And yes it is true that some purported "scientific studies" are better than others.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

I have had enough encounters with homosexuals to know something from a personal experience. I served with a Senior Pastor who was outed and died from AIDS. I can name about 4 teen boys who later became homosexual. All had more than strong mothers who likely influenced their minds and their hormones.

In addition, I have done extensive studies and paid attention to late-date scientific studies to conclude, as I expressed above,: It's not as simple as the Bible depicts.

I certainly am not a "mind reader"---but I have been observing your posts and your hate for homosexuals. I would hope you soften your position if you are willing to consider more current studies on the issue---like those covered in the wise CBF Conference at Decatur First. I was ordained by that, now, female-pastored church.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

I have had enough encounters with homosexuals to know something from a personal experience. I served with a Senior Pastor who was outed and died from AIDS. I can name about 4 teen boys who later became homosexual. All had more than strong mothers who likely influenced their minds and their hormones.

In addition, I have done extensive studies and paid attention to late-date scientific studies to conclude, as I expressed above,: It's not as simple as the Bible depicts.

I certainly am not a "mind reader"---but I have been observing your posts and your hate for homosexuals. I would hope you soften your position if you are willing to consider more current studies on the issue---like those covered in the wise CBF Conference at Decatur First. I was ordained by that, now, female-pastored church.

Ed: Gene in this post you only confirm that you have have known a few homosexual bot that you know anything about homosexuality.

And again where have demonstrated any hate for homosexuals? The fact is I have been acquainted with a few homosexuals for whom I have more respect than I do for you. Because I would suggest, that supporting their sin is far more damaging than any thing I have said about them.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

Perhaps I am being fooled by you, but as I have watched your posts on homosexuality, it is obvious you do not like nor condone it and are refusing to allow for it simply being part of the mystery of sexuality.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

Perhaps I am being fooled by you, but as I have watched your posts on homosexuality, it is obvious you do not like nor condone it and are refusing to allow for it simply being part of the mystery of sexuality.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

Ed: Gene, let me ask, do you Like or condone homosexuality? If so when did you change your mind? And Please keep in mind that we can dislike some ones homosexual actions without hating the person. As for your use of the "Mystery of sexuality" I think it is a cop out. So the only apology you owe me from this thread is for your accusation that I hate homosexuals.

[Gene Scarborough]

What you are noting about hating the sin and loving the sinner is a hard line to even know internally. I hope you are true to your personal analysis. Only you actually know and we easily fool ourselves with internal debates.

I do not condone nor encourage homosexuality. I just realize it is so powerful and internal that some are better off to admit to it and live with it in a responsible fashion. Same sex relations are, in my view, preferable to forcing someone gay to pretend one thing and in private live a life of debauchery and enticing innocent people into it.

As to the "mystery of sexuality" we are on a quest for medical information and understanding. There are enough studies now to safely say, "Some people are genetically male or female against their outward presentation of genetalia."

Another part of the sexual equation is how a single cell joins with a sperm and from this comes either a physically male or female being. This says to me that sexuality is a continuum rather than a clear either/or. In the case of an androgenous being both sexes are physically in a single newborn and gender assignment is needed through surgery. That used to be demanded early. Now physicians are waiting until that being makes the decision later in life.