CBF to vote on proposed hiring policy

[Rvaughn]

[Rvaughn]

[Sandy]

There's a link to the 43 page report in the article link. I would suggest reading through the whole report with some thoughtful consideration before making a comment. Baptists who lean in the direction of CBF or self-identify as moderates are always pretty thorough when it comes to their reasoning and thinking processes, and while that sometimes produces lengthy reports full of flowery language and religious talk, this report is quite thorough, gave a lot of consideration to a wide variety of perspectives, and is really concise, to the point, and reflective of reality such as it is within what CBF has become. I think it gives them, for the first time in their history, a sense of identity within which to develop a cooperative ministry as a group, and moves away from simply being "the old, recreated SBC."

[William Thornton]

You almost have to have a lawyer explain exactly what this means. Clarity isn't a word I'd use to describe it but...not my group anyway. The clearest response I saw was the one where it was said that gay people went from being excluded from CBF hiring to being second class citizens.

I'm not sure how this provides identity to the CBF. Semi-welcoming and affirming?

[Tim Bonney]

As far as I've read, I don't think this decision is going to help the CBF much with anyone. Conservatives will feel they've done wrong welcoming any LGBTQ folks and persons who are, or support LGBTQ folks will feel like they are set up to be second class citizens without full access to positions in the CBF. Its a lose lose.

[JE Pettibone]

Ed: I need some time to process this, in part that will be by discussing it with some CBF acquaintances in the North East and Central CBF regions, as well as listening to folk at the General Assembly in Dallas.

I have yet to read the full report, however based on the comments I have seen, I would possibly support some type of resistance or opposition response movement.

[Sandy]

I disagree. Up to this point, CBF has maintained a policy against hiring anyone who is openly LGBTQ. Rather than looking at who might be affected or offended by a change, they actually looked internally, at their core, not their fringes or their "potential," and their self-examination led to a conclusion that is very consistent with both being Baptist, and with the nature of a group that claims to be a fellowship, not a denomination.

There is a group of individuals and churches within the fellowship that favors a "welcoming and affirming" posture towards the LGBTQ community. For the most part, this group has remained in the fellowship for decades, since the beginning, hasn't gone anywhere, and isn't going anywhere. Those prone to leave because of the hiring policy are long gone, those who have stayed are those who place a higher value on the fellowship's mission and purpose, than on any specific set of "rights" to the jobs it provides. They also seem to be paying more attention to their core constituency of churches, rather than the "contributors" who still have a bigger footprint in the SBC. They claim that most of those churches are really in only because of deference given to some of their members, and if they leave because the hiring policy is more liberal than they like, those members are likely to continue supporting CBF, and they're not out all that much anyway. It looks like they've recognized the fact that they're not going to be the destination for any kind of influx from either the LGBTQ supporting churches, or the SBC supporting churches, and they're doing something to resolve a problem within their own constituency.

I think the LGBTQ community and their supporters in CBF will see this as a positive step. They're intelligent enough to recognize that you don't just make demands and expect deference without compromise. There are individuals and churches who hold a more conservative view, but I think they also value their commitment to the fellowship higher than the value of the hiring policy. I've been a member of a CBF congregation with some LGBTQ members, and a high percentage of the congregation sympathetic, welcoming and affirming who were committed to the fellowship even though it didn't take a "welcoming and affirming" posture, and preferred remaining in CBF rather than joining a welcoming and affirming church of another denomination. Change takes time, and in a Christian group, it moves at the rate of a glacier. Here's a group of Baptists working toward a resolution that they hope won't turn out the way most such situations do, with someone having to leave to keep the peace. I

[Tim Bonney]

[JE Pettibone]

[Sandy]

[Dave Roberts]

I enter this one with trepidation because whatever I say will probably be miscast, but I have been closer to this process than probably anyone else on BL, perhaps with the exception of Bruce. I have also had the full information for about three weeks. These are not complete thoughts, but they represent my journey.

First, this is all about a process and not about the result. The process is one of learning to have civil dialogue on difficult issues within CBF. That's the reason this was given the name Illumination Process. The end result could have probably been devised by three people sitting in an office somewhere trying to figure out what to say, but this was a process to attempt respect for all the stakeholders in CBF, both representing the 1,800 or so churches that contribute in some way along with the individuals who contribute who are not part of churches that do. It was about devising a process, not just getting a result.

Second, CBF is an autonomous organization dealing with autonomous churches that are not creedal or forced to copy one another. There is no effort in this either to speak to the churches about what they should do or to speak for the churches cooperating with CBF to the world. CBF speaks only for the organization itself and the organization only.

Third, in the Illumination Process, CBF sought to learn what the churches have said concerning the issues of sexuality. While there are churches that have taken a position endorsing the hiring of LGBTQ personnel, there is almost an equal percentage of churches who have taken a strongly negative position on the employment of those who are LGBTQ within church organizations. At the same time, virtually every church responding to survey questions indicated that they did have one or more active LGBTQ members. However, more than 55% of CBF-related churches have neither had any public conversation regarding sexuality nor have taken any declared positions in this area.

Fourth, the position taken in the 2000 hiring statement was a very limited statement saying that the only absolute prohibition against being hired by CBF would be that the person not be a practicing LGBT individual. In fact, there had never been any statement that the expectation was that a person hired by CBF had to be a Baptist or even needed to be a follower of Christ. Part of the current statement is to rectify the fact that we had never stated that these were to be at the top of our list rather than simply saying that someone could not be gay. Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to negative press, the new policy is seeking to magnify first an individual's relation with Christ and second to magnify his or her involvement with a CBF-church or partner institution.

Fifth, the division of employees into two categories regarding application of issues like homosexuality was modeled on the statement of the North American Mission Board of the SBC which has such a division of its employees. Also, the Illumination Project studied statement by other Christian groups including Christianity Today and Bread for the World for guidance in their policies.

Sixth, the Illumination Project sought to look at the context of service for CBF Personnel, especially those who serve in overseas assignments in which any change in the orientations of the personnel we are supporting might jeopardize the partnerships in which we are involved, the institutional relationships with other bodies, or the integrity of the witness of CBF personnel. Individual job descriptions will set the parameters of who may and may not be appointed or serve in those contexts.

Seventh, there has been an effort to recognize that not everyone will be happy with any statement made. Those who have a "welcoming and affirming" stance will feel that the positions proposed were too weak and were far too careful to be prophetic. Those who have adopted positions condemning gay marriage or any support for LGBT issues will feel that the positions taken are far too weak in the opposite direction. There is no way of knowing how the churches and individuals with no stated position will respond.

Above everything, this has been about the process followed. Can we model respectful disagreement among CBF churches and committed individuals to offer a way to deal with tough issues? This has been the purpose behind all of this, but to give a loving and Christlike hearing to all sides has been what this effort has been designed to do. Yes, the tectonic plates have moved in some areas. No, it has not been the earthquake for which some had hoped and against which others had fought. The jury is out on how most churches will be responding and how to deal with this. For the past two weeks, I have been on a team of CBF folks talking with stakeholders in the organization and sharing the process. I have received questions, both pointed and challenging, but the majority of those contacts have shown support for the process and hopes that other issues can be dealt with in a careful dialogue. Respect for differences is never easy, but I give thanks for an organization and a process in which they can be shared.

[JE Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

Ed, thank you for your considered response. I was not part of the Implementation Study, only one of those asked to help interpret it. The most vocal push-back so far has come from "welcoming and affirming churches" who wanted a blanket endorsement of employing LGBTQ personnel. I have a video interview that I just received. You might find it helpful with some of the distinctions that I may not have been able to as carefully delineate as some of the folks directly in the Illumination Project.

[William Thornton]

Dave wrote: "Fifth, the division of employees into two categories regarding application of issues like homosexuality was modeled on the statement of the North American Mission Board of the SBC which has such a division of its employees."

What is meant here?

[Rvaughn]

An article by Bob Allen at Baptist News;


and two opinion pieces:

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

[Rvaughn]

[Rvaughn]

[Dave Roberts]

[Rvaughn]

[Haruo]

What I'm getting from a very cursory reading of this thread is that CBF and the NAMB are okay with hiring gays as long as they are eligible for overtime pay. Weird. And that CBF is open to hiring gay missionaries if they are not married. Weirder.

I just read the in DC. Much clearer.

[Sandy]

What message is being sent to CBF leadership by the LGBTQ friendly churches who decide they'll pick up their football and go home, so to speak, at the time when the game is beginning to go their way? It will just increase resistance to any additional changes in the policy.

The LGBTQ-friendly churches and individuals advocating for them were highly critical of the fact that some of the more conservative churches might leave CBF if there was a complete reversal of the hiring policy.

It would be nice to see a group of Baptists come together on something instead of splitting up over it.