BaptistPlanet

Southern Religion

How can the SBC single out homosexuality?

Lyn Robbins of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, blogs a careful assessment of the homosexuality issues for which his church has been brought to the brink of expulsion (disfellowship) from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). And offers a solution which would serve both his church and the SBC well.

Action was delayed last week and additional information sought by the SBC Executive Committee to which the matter was referred by the SBC annual meeting last June.

Speaking for himself, not in his role as the church’s attorney, Robbins argues that the SBC Executive Committee should find there is no compelling reason to expell Broadway Baptist from the denomination. The church’s acceptance of homosexuals as members, who serve on church committees, is not sufficient reason. He explains:

According to the most recent amendment to the Southern Baptist Convention constitution, a church is not in friendly cooperation with the SBC if it acts to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. I do not believe Broadway has so acted. Such actions would include things like open statements of affirmation of homosexual behavior or publications of such statements. Such acts could include things like performance of a marriage or marriage-like ceremony between persons of the same gender. Such acts could arguably include ordination of homosexuals. Broadway has done none of those things.

His argument is careful and of necessity therefore complex.

Buried in its core like a diamond deep in a vein of lesser rock, however, is one clear, final argument: If the SBC boots out churches which allow homosexuals to become members and serve on committees, must it not do the same for with regard to other sins?

As he puts it:

How can church pick this one issue as the touchstone for withdrawing membership? Are we next going to excommunicate the gossips, the mean, the greedy, the abusive, the lazy, the gluttonous? I know many who do not believe that tithing is required; I know others who believe that failure to tithe is a sin. Is one side of that debate going to disfellowship the other?

There he may have found the path back up out of the inquisitorial pit which threatens to see the SBC booting out one church after another for welcoming into its midst people who are known to be (in SBC terms) sinners, not to lead the faithful, but to pursue the faith.

If you are seriously concerned about SBC issues, the entire argument deserves your attention here.

Update

Texas Blogger Ken Coffee, a retired Baptist minister, makes a similar point. At his blog “Strong Coffee” he writes:

If I had been a member at Broadway I would have told the SBC that we will dismiss all homosexuals from our church as soon as you dismiss all adulterers from yours.”

When you get rid of all the adulterers, you can start on getting rid of all liars. When the liars are all gone, start getting rid of the gossipers. And on and on.

Now, I sincerely believe homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, as is any lust of the flesh. But isn’t that what a church is for—to bring sinners under the gospel?

Christa Brown at “Stop Baptist Predators” asks:

If congregational autonomy doesn’t preclude the SBC from investigating a church with gay members, why does congregational autonomy preclude the SBC from investigating a church with a reported clergy child molester in the pulpit?

The author of “Deep in the heart …” agrees with Christa, asking:

If Broadway is under investigation, then why are these other churches, especially those where the abusers continue to serve, not under investigation also? All it would require, apparently, is a motion from the floor of a convention.

February 24, 2009 - Posted by | Churches, Religion | ,

6 Comments

  1. There is a serious flaw in both Mr. Robbins and Mr. Coffee’s reasoning. Both compare the act of homosexuality to the act of other sins like gossip, glutony, etc. But the comparison of acts isn’t what is at stake here.

    You see, no one is claiming that every sinful person should be cast out of the Church, nor is anyone claiming that all sin can be done away with in SBC Churches or expulsion is necessary (no one is even claiming that if a church has a member who is engaging in homosexual behavior, that Church should either deal with it or get out). The claim of the SBC is that Broadway is turning such a blind eye on homosexuality by granting membership to those who without reservation affirm homosexual behavior as appropriate and have members who clearly teach that such actions are not only appropriate, but preferrable and even Christ-exalting, that action is needed on the part of the SBC. (Now imagine one saying that about gossipping or adultery or glutony?).

    Now, that compares to a church where a potential candidate is asked, “Do you regularly commit adultery?” and the candidate answers, “well of course, the Bible doesn’t teach that to be wrong!” Then the church would answer, “Oh, even though you think the Bible teaches the opposite of what it does, that’s O.K. with us, we affirm you and believe it is alright for you to continue to practice this. In fact, many in our congregation feel you should have your adulterous partner depicted in our directory along with your spouse.”

    Now that is much different than a person entering into a covenant with a Church and then violating that covenant. Certainly I would say that a Church that does not seek to deal with this individual has serious problems, but they are not necessarily endorsing the behavior. But, if the Church knew about the behavior and had members who clearly stated it was not only appropriate, but also preferred, then that would be a Church that also should be disfellowshipped.

    You see the problem with Broadway is that it seems this Church has not only ignored the sin of homosexuality in its midst, but further compounded it by Institutionally giving hearty approval to those who commit such (Romans 1:32). I think Mr. Robbins and Mr. Coffee would be hard pressed to find a similar situation when it comes to adultery in the SBC.

    Comment by D.R. Randle | February 24, 2009

  2. At the heart of the question is 1) logic (if A-D are equal, why single out A and not B, C, and D?) and 2) the concept of fairness (treat all sin the same or treat none at all).

    Yet God singled out some behaviors of His people for purging (e.g., immorality w/Moabites); Annanias and Sapphira were ‘singled out’ among sinners in the early church; Nehemiah chose reforms to revive God’s house; the disciples singled out fornication and eating food sacrificed to idols as the few requirements of Gentile Christians; Paul chose an example of immorality in the Corinthian church – and their arrogance in ignoring it – to discipline; Jesus’s warnings to the seven churches included immorality and called for repentance.

    We could ask “How can God (or Paul or Jesus) single out X?” Only God knows, but the sin behaviors tended to set precedents, lead others astray or to stumble, become unremarkable or common, or even cause for arrogance, weaken the people and/or make the congregation indistinguishable from the world.

    I have no idea what’s going on in the case of Broadway (other than what’s on the internet). But the “singling out” argument seems mis-aimed; also, it’s nicely content-neutral but that makes it applicable to everything. In other words, no one can say anything about anything. Painted into a corner!

    Comment by K Gray | March 2, 2009

    • K Gray, your points are well-made. To be fair to those arguing on behalf of Broadway Baptist, I think there is an intention to restrict the comparisons to sins that are somehow roughly equivalent. We should have referred to something like “deadly sins” in our summary. Yet the argument certainly is, as you seem to say, apply discipline to all of the somehow roughly equivalent sins, or to none at all.

      Comment by baptistplanet | March 2, 2009

  3. It’s a tough issue and we fear it, I think.

    Roughly equivalent might include the practice of adultery or fornication. If, for example, the church (or SBC or whomever) would have no objection to committed heterosexual couples living together w/o marriage and desiring to join the church together, to be depicted together in the church directory (which Broadway has not done), and/or to lead worship, etc., and the church’s standing would not be placed in jeopardy, then yes, homosexuality is being singled out.

    Because the argument has already been logically ceded.

    And maybe that’s the result people prefer: the “none at all” approach. Logic and fairness are how we get there. Strictly applied, local church autonomy plus fairness principles would keep conventions out of church business, and personal autonomy plus fairness would keep churches out of members’ business. Government-like fairness results. It’s inclusive, tolerant, equal and nondiscriminatory. No disfellowship, no divisive votes, no schisms.

    But Biblical wisdom limits autonomy when needed to restore individuals, protect and revive the body, and glorify God. Can we ignore it? What about the victims? What about children and baby Christians? Weaker brothers, the wavering, the tempted? What about mockers? Witness? What about a holy God jealous for His people? It’s sobering to read all the Scripture — including examples — on rebuke, reproval, discipline, etc. They require loving, self-sacrificial human action in the Spirit. And why undertake that? Resistance is strong, and populist criticism is immediate. As Bro. Coffee said, knowing and loving the people involved, where and how does one start?

    I don’t know. We believe or we don’t. We obey or disobey.

    Logic and fairness are like leaven. They tend to ruthlessly take over every issue, including those we think will never happen at our church. If we keep prioritizing these principles, that’s what our children will do. Since God’s Word doesn’t follow our ideas of logic or consistency or fairness, where does this lead?

    Comment by K Gray | March 2, 2009

  4. […] Knights Out indeed. Navy Times says there are similar support and education groups formed by graduates of the U.S. Naval Academy and U.S. Air Force Academy, known respectively as USNA Out and Blue Alliance. Not that Navy Times casts any light on disfellowshipping. […]

    Pingback by Navy Times on Knights (out) « BaptistPlanet | March 18, 2009

  5. I find it amusing and pathetic that “true believers” can be so ignorant in the face of overwhelming evidence that -assuming for the minute that there is a “god”- he/she/it could or would allow such an “imperfect” beings to be created by his/her/it’s munificence or, being created, to continue. Everything that science has discovered to date indicates strongly if not conclusively that: Darwin was correct; that man did not coexist with dinosaurs; that the “bible” is not fact, but myth for the most part written over a long period and changed to meet the current needs of the existing power elite; and -more on this point- homosexuality is no more a choice than skin color or blood type. I have no qualms about a person’s individual beliefs, even though I am not a “believer”. What I do strongly object to is when those people believe they have the right and/or the obligation to force their beliefs on others. In this respect the fringe element of evangelicals is no better than the extreme fundamentalist practitioner of Islam and that apparently includes the leadership of the SBC, Focus on the Family, the “rev.” phelps and his band of wing-nuts, the ayatollahs robertson, dodson, f. graham, weidmon, perkins, reid, et al. 9who, incidently, make a pretty good living inciting fear, superstition, bigotry, and worse) The vast majority of the youth of this country are beginning to understand and appreciate the commonality of all mankind and if the so-called leaders of “organized religion”, especially the fringe evangelical dominionists can’t understand and modify their warped, misguided -however “heartfelt”- beliefs and bring them into the 21st century … I suggest they get the hell out of the way !!!

    Comment by USNA Ancient | March 18, 2009


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

« Previous | Next »