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

[William Thornton]

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]

[JE Pettibone]

[KeithE]

[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]

[Rvaughn]

[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]

[Haruo]

What list, Ed?

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[JE Pettibone]

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

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[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]

[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]