by Dave Roberts » Tue Feb 13, 2018 12:00 pm
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.