CBF partner on 'full inclusion' to no one's surprise

[William Thornton]

Head of CBF partner ministry supports full inclusion of gays

No surprise here. We expected it starting a generation ago. No argument about it from me, though: not my money, not my organizaiton, not my partner, not my fight any longer.

We've all been in this from the get-go. Previous BCE leader Robert Parham pointedly failed to share the 'full inclusion' position. I always thought he had to fund and sustain an organization whose revenues come from moderate southern baptists and former southern baptists; thus, a demeanor that took plenty of shots at the SBC but didn't depart all that much from them on this issue. The new BCE leader, a SWBTS grad, one figured to come around to the full liberal position and set himself apart from Parham.

There is no place in any of the SBC's entities for someone with Randall's position. If a pastor expressed his views, the church may well be excluded from SBC life.

No interest in arguing with my friends here on it, just noting that things are going as we all expected thirty years ago on this issue - SBC is conservative. CBF and partners are liberal.

[JE Pettibone]

Head of CBF partner ministry supports full inclusion of gays

No surprise here. We expected it starting a generation ago. No argument about it from me, though: not my money, not my organizaiton, not my partner, not my fight any longer.

We've all been in this from the get-go. Previous BCE leader Robert Parham pointedly failed to share the 'full inclusion' position. I always thought he had to fund and sustain an organization whose revenues come from moderate southern baptists and former southern baptists; thus, a demeanor that took plenty of shots at the SBC but didn't depart all that much from them on this issue. The new BCE leader, a SWBTS grad, one figured to come around to the full liberal position and set himself apart from Parham.

There is no place in any of the SBC's entities for someone with Randall's position. If a pastor expressed his views, the church may well be excluded from SBC life.

No interest in arguing with my friends here on it, just noting that things are going as we all expected thirty years ago on this issue - SBC is conservative. CBF and partners are liberal.

[JE Pettibone]

William

No interest in arguing with my friends here on it, just noting that things are going as we all expected thirty years ago on this issue

Ed: If you have no interest in being argumenitive in that second statement. Why start an argument? True some in CBF are liberal on the question of homosexuality. Others of us are not. I will be interested to see how this first major step toward full inclusion is received at the General Assembly. It looks as if some of us could be on the verge of another takeover, this time by the Alliance of Baptist. Of course I am still ABC-USA which has churches that are welcoming and affirming as well as those on the other end of the spectrum. I will be keeping my ears and eyes open in Virginia City in a few weeks.

[KeithE]

Head of CBF partner ministry supports full inclusion of gays

No surprise here. We expected it starting a generation ago. No argument about it from me, though: not my money, not my organizaiton, not my partner, not my fight any longer.

We've all been in this from the get-go. Previous BCE leader Robert Parham pointedly failed to share the 'full inclusion' position. I always thought he had to fund and sustain an organization whose revenues come from moderate southern baptists and former southern baptists; thus, a demeanor that took plenty of shots at the SBC but didn't depart all that much from them on this issue. The new BCE leader, a SWBTS grad, one figured to come around to the full liberal position and set himself apart from Parham.

There is no place in any of the SBC's entities for someone with Randall's position. If a pastor expressed his views, the church may well be excluded from SBC life.

No interest in arguing with my friends here on it, just noting that things are going as we all expected thirty years ago on this issue - SBC is conservative. CBF and partners are liberal.

William says “no interest" is arguing herein, but he does wrestle (see above) with power plays. He asks us to just accept - I’m an ex-pastor you see with residual pastoral authority. No need to question anything.

Let me make a distinction in the fighting world. One can site ecclesiastical entity’s stances in attempt to sway people and that is what William has done above (pointing out the stances of the SBC and the BCE). I’ll call that “wrestling” using of the supposed power of traditional authorities as well as his residual pastoral authority.

But I’ll offer a couple of boxing jabs (factual and logical points).
1)

No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

Source: Wikipedia (which beats the virtually unmonitored Facebook any day and cites many academic references)

2) Read 1 Cor 11:14. It uses the same terms (“nature” and “degrading”) to decry men with long hair as Romans 1:26-27 uses to decry homosexuality. To be a consistent biblicist, one has to not allow men with long hair in staff positions and one has to have the same bile in their hearts against the long haired men as one does homosexuals. Paul was equally condemnatory.

You all may disagree with these “jabs” and I certainly did 10 years ago

But my kids made me see the light of love. Todd pointed out that love supersedes the letter of the law and Brandy pointed me to the fact that homosexual minorities existed in virtually all animals.

BTW, they both use a gay babysitter (Todd on weekdays, Brandy when she has a rare date with her traveling husband or needs additional help due to medical appointments/hospitalization). He is better than any babysitter I have ever witnessed - makes kids clean up after themselves without complaints when they come to our pool, drives them anywhere they need to go, and has trained them do house work (dishes, laundry, mow the lawn, probably more - still working on 3 year old). Same gay guy does nursery duty at our church for the ESL Program.

This gay guy became an issue at a UMC church when a new conservative pastor was assigned. He is about 35-40 years old and grew up in that church but has now left. This last Christmas he was invited back by the Music Minister to sing in a Christmas cantata. He told me he saw 3 people leave the worship service; but a bridge acquaintance (adamant Trump supporter) said he left with about 15 others in protest of his just singing in the choir. That church is now splintering. Associative Pastor left right after new pastor came a few years back and she and her husband joined the UPC - they are good friends from Emmaus.

Let me ask you, William (if you can tolerate more discussion) would you tolerate him singing in the choir? Would you tolerate him babysitting in your church? Would you tolerate a long haired man babysitting in your church (or singing n the choir)? Or are you just glad that you can sit back, occasionally expressed yourself and yawn at all other points of view?

Take your time- I’m leaving today on a trip for a wedding in Oregon and see ailing relatives in California. But I'm getting a haircut first!

[William Thornton]

Ed I'm interested in what happens going forward. Not arguing with you on anything.

Keith, who could possibly be swayed here? We few ha've done this for years. And you will have noticed that the new guy didn't make any argument from the texts.

You ask a bunch of questions. Will respond later... only if you don't consider it arguing.

I doubt that you could find anyone who didn't expect this.

[KeithE]

Ed I'm interested in what happens going forward. Not arguing with you on anything.

Keith, who could possibly be swayed here? We few ha've done this for years. And you will have noticed that the new guy didn't make any argument from the texts.

You ask a bunch of questions. Will respond later... only if you don't consider it arguing.

I doubt that you could find anyone who didn't expect this.

Well I do not expect to sway you, but I can always hope. I changed my mind on this subject as I described above. But you act annoyed that I should express myself (while taking the opportunity to express yourself). You got to your desired point at the end of your initial post - namely that the "CBF is liberal” after all.

Who is the “new guy”? Randall? All we have from him is in the linked article (unless you have more):

At seminary, Randall said, he learned that “while the Bible is sacred and authoritative for Christians, human interpretation must never be canonized over the living Word of God.”

“Humans have a tendency to interpret the Bible through anthropocentric lenses, which perpetuate previously codified orthodoxies established by the powerful,” Randall wrote. “In other words, we interpret the Bible in ways that favor the powerful establishment.”

As a young pastor, Randall said, he encountered LGBTQ Christians and their relatives during pastoral visits, with recurring themes that gay people do not choose to be the way they are and would change if they could.

Recalling words from a seminary professor about controversy in the first century church over whether Gentile Christians must observe the Jewish custom of circumcision, Randall said he reached the conclusion that “who was I that I could hinder God?”

“If God was calling more and more LGBTQ disciples into the church, who am I to prevent it?” Randall pondered. “Did they have to convert to a certain interpretation like the Gentiles were forced to do? Was the church going to force yet another group of people to wear a ‘mark on the body’ to enter into their community? Was not a ‘mark on the heart’ enough?”

“In the end, I decided I was going to stop fighting with God about God’s LGBTQ children,” Randall wrote.

True he is not arguing from “texts”, more from hermeneutical principles, major themes of the bible, and personal interaction with LGBTQs.

I won’t be surprised how you answer my questions, if you bother to. I offer them as a chance for your reflection.

[Rvaughn]

Who is the “new guy”? Randall? All we have from him is in the linked article (unless you have more):

As far as more, probably some of this is the article by William, but there is more in the sense of what Mitch Randall himself has written at Ethics Daily:
My Journey to Full Inclusion of LGBTQ Christians

[William Thornton]

I appreciate the link from RVaughn.

Keith if you are only asking for my own benefit then there's no need to answer you.

[Tim Bonney]

William, my previous experience was, like all Baptists, there are people across a spectrum in the CBF, ABC and even the SBC. Its hardly fair to label all CBF folks as "liberal" based on a single theological issue which I'm sure all CBFers don't agree about.

However if you want to call me a liberal, go right ahead, I enjoy it.

[JE Pettibone]

William, my previous experience was, like all Baptists, there are people across a spectrum in the CBF, ABC and even the SBC. Its hardly fair to label all CBF folks as "liberal" based on a single theological issue which I'm sure all CBFers don't agree about.

However if you want to call me a liberal, go right ahead, I enjoy it.

Ed: So Tim, why don't more Baptist who support homosexuality do as you did and become Methodist. Oh I forgot, Methodist are not totally agreed on this question. BTW you let the most supportive Baptist, the Alliance of Baptist which was already an alternative when, CBF began, off your list. And yes I know you also had additional reasons for changing.

[Haruo]

What list, Ed?

[William Thornton]

William, my previous experience was, like all Baptists, there are people across a spectrum in the CBF, ABC and even the SBC. Its hardly fair to label all CBF folks as "liberal" based on a single theological issue which I'm sure all CBFers don't agree about.

However if you want to call me a liberal, go right ahead, I enjoy it.

Of course I recognize that there is a spectrum in the CBF but every official group, partner, organization, and leader has moved to a liberal stance on this. Bob Allen does contrast Randall with the newly revised national CBF position which is slightly to the right of the BCE head.

Individuals vary much more, seems to me. Ed is very conservative on the issue.

Imagine if Russ Moore had this eureka moment Randall had. Heat be sacked before sun sets.

[Tim Bonney]

Ed: So Tim, why don't more Baptist who support homosexuality do as you did and become Methodist. Oh I forgot, Methodist are not totally agreed on this question. BTW you let the most supportive Baptist, the Alliance of Baptist which was already an alternative when, CBF began, off your list. And yes I know you also had additional reasons for changing.

I'd say that most Baptists wouldn't feel theologically compatible with Methodists. The human sexuality debate wasn't really part of my decision at the time. The official positions of the ABC and the UMC were pretty similar when I made the move. And in the last nine years I have become a much stronger supporter of LGBTQ+ rights than I was nine years ago. My theology continues to evolve.

[Tim Bonney]

Of course I recognize that there is a spectrum in the CBF but every official group, partner, organization, and leader has moved to a liberal stance on this. Bob Allen does contrast Randall with the newly revised national CBF position which is slightly to the right of the BCE head.

Individuals vary much more, seems to me. Ed is very conservative on the issue.

Imagine if Russ Moore had this eureka moment Randall had. Heat be sacked before sun sets.

There has been a change in opinions for many people in the US, particularly in the last decade. We know things we didn't know about human sexuality and sexual orientation. Many of us know people in the LGBTQ+ community and have had opportunity to hear about their lives.

Folks who still think being gay is a sin is a shrinking demographic in the entire US population as well as the Church. So it is no surprise that this would be true in the CBF. And stats I see say that it is even true in evangelical denominations among young people.

And yes, I'm more liberal than I was 10 years ago on a lot of things too. (And then I was 20 or 30 years ago when I started ministry.) My theology has continued to evolve over the years with age and life experiences, etc. additional reading and training, etc. No apologies there. My faith means more to me now than it ever has.

[JE Pettibone]

ED: Of course it is no surprise, the devil has a powerful PR team.

[Tim Bonney]

ED: Of course it is no surprise, the devil has a powerful PR team.

If we are going to talk about Frankly Graham again that probably needs another thread.

[Sandy]

No surprise here. We expected it starting a generation ago.

I am surprised. CBF's stance, as an organization, was to avoid taking positions on issues that it considered to be divisive, leaving those things up to the local churches and focusing on the areas where its partnering churches could work with its partner organizations. Relatively early on it defunded the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America for its pro-LGBTQ position. Personally, I always thought CBF's "new way to be Baptist" was just going back to the traditional way of being Baptist that the SBC's conservative resurgence, in its quest for doctrinal purity, had abandoned.

Citing practices of the “vast majority” of CBF churches, the board said leadership positions would be open only to candidates “who practice a traditional Christian sexual ethic of celibacy in singleness or faithfulness in marriage between a woman and a man.”

That quote is at the end of this article in reference to the Illumination Project, which slightly altered CBF's hiring policy. The way CBF is set up and operates means that, at least theoretically, if a partnering organization like the Baptist Center for Ethics takes a different position on an interpretation of scripture, the partnering congregations have the ability to "opt out" of financial support if they feel that their position is a "deal breaker." One of the things from traditional Baptist practice that has carried over and worked very well in CBF is the principle that no one Baptist speaks for any other Baptist and no independent, autonomous Baptist organization speaks for other Baptists collectively. Most Southern Baptists have either forgotten, or simply abandoned that principle in favor of lock step conformity on doctrinal interpretation to the point of believing that if you interpret scripture differently, especially on a hot button issue like this one, that is evidence that you are not a Christian. That's a position that hasn't exactly benefitted them. But they have bigger problems to try and solve, like why more of their ordained ministers are sexual predators than Catholic priests and where more than a million members have gone in a decade.

I was a member of one of the core group, early joining and major supporting churches of CBF for more than a decade. The church's position on persons of LGBTQ orientation was to welcome them to the church, including into membership. Our Sunday School class had two transsexual females attending for quite some time, and while I'm not sure how many LGBTQ members and attendees we had, it may have been as many as 100. The church's position on homosexuality was that it was a sin, just like any other sin, requiring repentance and forgiveness, but recognized that all "saved sinners" are still prone to sin. They wouldn't have permitted someone who was openly gay or lesbian serving in a volunteer or paid ministry position but they left the decision of the individual's relationship with God up to them and expected those who were serving, regardless of what kind of sin they had in their life, to continuously be "working out their salvation with fear and trembling." Knowing the church's position, you served according to your own conscience. I'm fine with that. I am not God, don't have his discernment and am not capable of judging another human being's spiritual condition. I don't agree with the position that homosexual behavior is normal and does not constitute sin. But if you hold that position, I won't judge your salvation as a result of it and I won't interfere with your sense of call to service in the church. Likewise, I expect respect for my position. For that reason, the church did not adopt a "welcoming and affirming" stance toward persons of LGBTQ orientation because they believed that would be imposing that view on a majority who did not accept it.

For a long time, that seemed to be CBF's position. The writer of this article acknowledges that the "vast majority" of churches and CBF members do not hold an affirming position when it comes to persons of LGBTQ orientation. In recent years, however, the organization itself has been moving in the direction of being favorable to this position, pushed there by a small group of vocal churches who threatened to leave if the hiring policy wasn't changed. I don't know if their most recent exec coordinator, Suzii Paynter, had anything to do with it or not though their shift coincides with her term of service, but it seems that they are now moving toward taking a position on this issue. BCE is an independent, autonomous partner of CBF, so it does not reflect CBF policy or represent its position on anything. But I wonder why they are doing this, following what CBF itself did with its Illumination Project. CBF still does not take an official position on this issue. But among their leadership, there is an elitism that thinks those who hold different views just need to be "educated" on them, like they are, and I've observed CBF leaders who are patronistic on social issues, thinking that their vast reservoir of theological education is intended for the enlightenment of others. That kind of attitude produced the mass exodus from mainline Protestantism that continues to this day and decimated half of their membership and thousands of churches. I think it is probably already doing the same in CBF.

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy, I’m not going to try to engage in all you said above. But the idea that the decline in the mainline is due to LGBTQ inclusion or liberalism has been debunked. Statistically it is largely about lower birth rates primarily. White Americans, the majority of mainliners, have a lot less kids than they used to. Also when we have lost young people it has been more when we didn’t welcome all people, not when we did.

Yes, division over human sexuality has split mainline denominations. But what it has mostly done has created new mainline denominations that basically hold to the same theology on almost everything other than human sexuality. Splitting into more denominations doesn’t translate into churches disappearing, just affiliating differently.

[Sandy]

Sandy, I’m not going to try to engage in all you said above. But the idea that the decline in the mainline is due to LGBTQ inclusion or liberalism has been debunked. Statistically it is largely about lower birth rates primarily. White Americans, the majority of mainliners, have a lot less kids than they used to. Also when we have lost young people it has been more when we didn’t welcome all people, not when we did.

Yes, division over human sexuality has split mainline denominations. But what it has mostly done has created new mainline denominations that basically hold to the same theology on almost everything other than human sexuality. Splitting into more denominations doesn’t translate into churches disappearing, just affiliating differently.

Liberal theology and the attitude from many clergy that it was their responsibility, due to their vast educational experience and knowledge, to change the way the ignorant masses in the pew believed is what caused the decline in Mainline Protestant membership, starting in the 1960's, long before the birth rates declined. And the decline in the birth rate isn't large enough to account for the size and scope of the membership losses. Evangelicals and Catholics have lost membership due to the birth rate, but not anywhere near the size and scope of the drop among Mainline American Protestants. The leadership of the Episcopal Church USA has frankly admitted that their most recent membership losses, almost 40% of what they had prior, coincides with their decision to accept and ordain LGBTQ clergy. And it does not appear that Millennials are overrunning the Episcopal Church, nor any of the other declining mainline denominations that ordain LGBTQ clergy.

CBF keeps its statistics and figures close to the vest, but I can guess, just from reading between the lines, that the appearance of the Illumination Project and the implementation of its report last year has had an effect on CBF's income.

[Haruo]

The other end of the issue has cost members, too. My brother Alan and his wife were converted by one of their sons, while he was in college, from UCC to non-church-attending atheism some time in the last decade. I think a major factor in this sort of membership loss, affecting mainly the more "liberal" denominations, congregations, and members, has been the loss of social value in church affiliation and membership. It used to be that one had to defend your nonattendance or disbelief as or more strenuously than one's attendance or belief, and social standing, credibility with clients, etc., were enhanced by visible religious activity. Now, in some parts of the country anyway (and increasingly in most if not all urban areas, I think) the situations are reversed. Many people see religious faith and churches as presumptively unhelpful in the creation and maintenance of a just and equitable society.

[JE Pettibone]

ED: Of course it is no surprise, the devil has a powerful PR team.

If we are going to talk about Frankly Graham again that probably needs another thread.

Ed: Tim, I said nothing about Franklin Graham.