Homosexuality, North Carolina Baptists, and The Sanderson Motion

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Martin, Dec 6, 2006.

  1. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does the Bible support this statement...

    "The reason the church exists is to help sinners turn away from sin" -source

    I have thought about this alot lately thanks to several articles the Biblical Recorder website. The debate is over North Carolina Baptist's ruling on homosexuals. The North Carolina convention passed the The Sanderson Motion which deals with "churches not in friendly cooperation with the Convention are churches which knowingly act to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior". Yet it seems that many Baptists are opposed to this and one of the "reasonings" used is the above statement that "the church exists to help sinners turn away from sin". I thought the church was the Body of Christ and in the local sense a local body of believers. Yes believers are to be active in evangelism (to all people) but the church itself is made up of believers. Church services should include the Gospel message (no doubt) but the main purpose of church services is to build up believers (teaching them the Word). Churches that violate Scripture's moral teachings (on homosexuality or any other issue) should not be supported by churches that don't violate those teachings (1Cor 5).

    To be clear the Sanderson motion does not...

    Click Here to read about the Sanderson Motion

    So how does this give Baptists a bad name? Does it give us a bad name because we refuse to compromise with the world as other denominations have done? Does it give us a bad name because we are standing up against sin? How does this give us a bad name? Was Paul giving Christianity a bad name when he ordered the Corinthian Church "not to associate with immoral people" (vs9)? Or when he ordered them to turn the willful sinner over to judgment (vs5)?

    Maybe I am missing something here? Maybe I am just a simple-minded hillbilly from the south who just crawled out of a cave...I don't know.

    One person said:
    "I personally believe gays are born this way. No one would choose this lifestyle knowing how terribly they will be treated. Others would say God would not create such a person. How about little babies that come into the world blind, retarded, autistic, and with various handicaps? I do not know the mind of God, but I do know he is a loving God of mystery." -source

    That sounds real nice and post-modern and, no doubt, it is. However, and make no mistake about this, it is a pack of devilish lies. People are born with handicaps (of all sorts) because of "SIN", because of the "CURSE", and "IF" there is some biological fault that causes some to be tempted with homosexuality it is a result of the "FALL" (it is not a blessing). Make no mistake about it, biology does "NOT" determine morality. Just because something is biological does not mean it is moral or good. And just because someone is tempted with something does not mean it is ok for them to give into it (see Jms 1:14-16).

    This person also says:
    "I think all Baptists would do well to spend their time feeding the hungry, visiting the prisoners, and less time judging others and gossiping."

    So the church should just stand back and do nothing while millions fall to sin and end up in hell? Maybe this person has failed to read the passages about sin and its results (Mk 7:20-23, Rev 21:8, 1Cor 6:9-10, Matt 5:27-30, etc) or maybe they like to cherry pick the verses they believe. When we say homosexuality is a sin we are not judging anyone, we are just repeating what GOD has already said (Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1Cor 6:9-10, Rom 1:25-27).

    These are nothing but examples of compromise and Biblical ignorance. The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina did the right thing.
     
    #1 Martin, Dec 6, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 6, 2006
  2. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    The problem is that there are a lot of sins other than homosexuality and nowhere in the Bible does it say that one is more repulsive to God than any other. As a Deacon, I talked to a couple that had just made the decision to join our church. I knew that they were unmarried and living together. I didn't know what to do because we had no policy covering that situation.

    So, are you saying that I certainly should have blocked a homosexual from joining the church (or even to attend) but allow this couple living in adultry to join?
     
  3. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==No. I said in my post that "Churches that violate Scripture's moral teachings (on homosexuality or any other issue) should not be supported by churches that don't violate those teachings (1Cor 5)". Notice also that I kept refering to 1Corinthians 5 which says nothing about homosexuality. Rather it is Paul's instructions on how to deal with immorality, sin, in the church after the person(s) have been warned (Matt 18:15-20). I would apply that to any person in a church, or seeking to join a church, who are living in open sin. Keep in mind that such people will not inherit the Kingdom of God, rather they will end up in the lake of fire (1Cor 6:9-10, Gal 5:19-21, Rev 21:8). The Bible is clear that "no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). I would not have recommended the couple you are refering to for church membership.

    Related story.

    Many years ago I was a member of a very large Southern Baptist Church. One morning the pastor, who I knew, got up in front of the church and said something shocking. Not shocking in a bad way but in a good way. While I knew he believed the Bible (etc) I just did not know he had this level of bravery in him. He said that if there were people in the church who were living together outside of marriage they needed to leave and not come back until they had repented. What did he base that on? 1Corinthians 5. The church cannot tolerate wilfull, open sin.
     
  4. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree that the church and a denomination cannot allow outward unrepentent sin. We have administered church discipline in the past and would again if and when the situation called for it.

    What I think may be a problem is that we Southern Baptists tend to just name one sin, in this case, homosexuality. Homosexuality is sinful. But so is sowing discord among brothers, which is named as one of thesins God hates. So maybe instead of just naming homosexuals, we ought to also name the sin of Aunt Mary who has been in 5 churches in 15 years and left a trail of hurt pastors and split churches.

    I think that most associations already have in place a mechanism to let go of churches wo do what the Sanderson Motion talks about. I agree that they have done the right thing, I just think that many more churches are being destroyed by people other than homosexuals.
     
  5. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    But it's hard to find a scripture that supports any kind of sin. Should my church have been disassociated from the denomination because it knowingly admitted a couple living in adultry? If not then why should a church be outcast because it allows homosexuals to attend or join? (BTW I don't support homosexuality. I just hate hypocrites.)
     
  6. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    This isn't the TV smashing Sanderson...is it?
     
  7. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==I am not going to say that your church should have been disassociated since I am a firm believer in the free church idea. However I will say that I think your church was wrong in admitting people who are living in open sin (Matt 18:15-17, 1Cor 5).

    ==I believe the Sanderson amendment makes the point that the association does not automatically exclude any church. However I wonder why any church would admit open homosexuals into their church membership. Doing so violates every New Testament standard of the local church.
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Churches should have some policies or guidelines that deal with such situtations in their church bylaws. A Christian lawyer has suggested that churches should consider some of the following in their membership requirements:

    The person requesting membership must be free from the following:
    A. Living with a person as though married without being legally married to that person
    B. Un-forsaken or ongoing incestuous relationship
    C. Un-forsaken or ongoing practice of polygamy
    D. Un-forsaken or ongoing adulterous relationship
    E. Un-forsaken or ongoing use of illegal drugs
    F. Un-forsaken or ongoing act(s) of pedophilia or child molestation.
    G. Un-forsaken or ongoing homosexual relationship(s)
    H. Un-forsaken or ongoing sexual misconduct such as fornication, incest, adulatery, pedophilia, child-molestation, homosexuality,, transvestitism, etc.
    I. Un-forsaken or ongoing viewing, possessing, or distributing of pornography
    J. Un-forsaken or ongoing spouse or child abuse
    K. Having, engaging in, or planning to have a sex change
    [This is not a complete list of sins or practices that a believer should avoid or forsake]

    Membership will be revoked if any of these things are found to be true after membership has been granted.
     
  9. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you missed one...

    Un-forsaken or ongoing sinful living


    Oh, that's right... everyone sins... Let's only add the ones that you* don't have a problem with or do.

    Are all your members prefect? If not, how are they any different than anyone else that is struglling in sin?

    How are we to win people to Christ and in turn help them get over their sinful ways when we won't allow them in the church?!?

    I can understand why some people tend to think they need to "protect" the church, but it doesn't need protecting. God will protect it if it's a true church. We need to be concerned with winning over souls for Christ and let the Holy Spirit win over the sinful ways.


    Jamie



    *You being the people who would pick such things to go in their membership requirements
     
  10. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0

    :laugh: :laugh:
    I was going to ask the same thing.
     
  11. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    So, are you aware of any churches that have been dissassociated from their associations for something other than homosexuality or women in the ministry? I've never heard of one. I just think that the Church has fixated on a small number of sins and overlooked the rest.
     

Share This Page

Loading...