SBC Executive Committee proposes ouster of church over homosexuality

I’m not criticizing “views” of Broadway, but instead pointing to the facts in evidence. As I said from the very first post on this thread, I’m not a big fan of Broadway Baptist, but the rationale given for their ouster is not based on the real issues. In my opinion, it also violates the autonomy of the local church... a position the current SBC leadership conveniently cite when it is politically-unhelpful (like when a church in lock-step with the SBC leadership knowingly keeps a sexual predator on staff).

Given that Broadway has (1) publicly asserted it has not affirmed homosexual relationships, (2) the vote taken regarding the pictorial directory shows that a majority believes that way, (3) they have had a lot of fallout in their membership over the results of that vote (in my understanding, mostly those in favor of homosexual relationships), on what basis do you think the church is endorsing homosexuality?


Why should anyone take the recommendation of the Executive Committee seriously?

No it doesn’t. I told you my “agenda” in the first post. It’s very strange that you somehow think a secret agenda has been uncovered in the midst of our discussion when I told everyone my position in the first post. (Short form: Don’t like Broadway much but their position is being misrepresented --> I think it is an effort to intimidate, expel and ultimately control churches in violation of the spirit of autonomy.)

Pointing out facts in evidence and inconsistencies in the way they do things is not condemnation. And for the record, I condemn actions, not people.

Ah, the word coined by Jesus referring to an actor who wears a false face:

hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē) - The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Since I have not hidden my true position, taken a position I do not believe, or knowingly presented false claims or evidence, I am not a hypocrite.

You really need to learn the meaning and usage of that word.

 

It violates autonomy because they have previously attempted to provoke change in the church from outside the membership using the threat of ouster as a means of influence.

I'll leave that judgment to the discretion of others. I don't think I have to defend myself at this point.

What I myself?

Have I tried to exert pressure to have a church removed from fellowship?

Apparently your version of "debunked" means someone in print has a different opinion.

Let's see: (1) I have lived in Fort Worth nearly 20 years, (2) I have visited Broadway Baptist Church a number of times, (3) I know people who are members and have talked to them about the issues, (4) I am not especially fond of the church and have been vocally critical of some of their positions, so I'm not an uncritical advocate for their position, (5) I have direct experience as an individual and as a member of a church (having served on our congregation's denominational relations committee) dealing with a number of issues of attempted intimidation by SBC officials, so perhaps I might actually have some insight into this situation that others may not.

FWIW, you need to understand that the BGCT might be playing politics too. They know they will be tarred and feathered with the charge of coddling homosexual-affirming churches if they stand by the lost cause of defending Broadway Baptist. Folks like Roger Moran and others have tried to hang a pro-homosexual tag around the neck of the BGCT for many years, and if the president of the BGCT defended Broadway too vigorously, then it will give the Southern Baptists of Texas an enormous amount of ammunition to continue to undermine the membership of the BGCT.

Take it for what it is. Obviously, you don't have much respect for my position, but I'll take the chance that others might find my perspective helpful.

 

He barely survived the vote and then departed. Did you notice I said "led to his resignation?"

I was simply pointing out that your logic was faulty. Gay members in the congregation (whatever that means - could be those with same sex attraction or could mean actively pursuing homosexual relations) does not necessarily indicate affirmation.

But, for what it's worth, I posted evidence in the very first post in this thread that a church associated with Southern Baptists of Texas (which is tied lock-step with the SBC leadership) knowingly has a sexual predator on staff.

 

Simply repeating your position is not an argument.

I'll let your words stand for all to consider. This accusation has already been refuted.

Considering he was participating in this activity 30 years ago and then the behavior was again documented in 2005, plus the fact that he did not abide by the agreement he made with the previous congregation to get out of ministry and simply moved 10 miles down the road to take another, I highly doubt this is true repentance. He has also had at least one marriage break up during this time though I have not wanted to ask his ex-wife about the details.

His issues are almost certainly very deeply rooted, and a few months of counseling are not going to change these behaviors. It is the work of years.

But I'll pose the question to you: Would you trust him alone with your wife?

 

"Documented" means there are documents offered as evidence for anyone to examine.

Again, I point you to the first message of this thread. There are links at the bottom that pull up scans of well-researched articles on him.

I've never asked you to do that. That's why I have clearly posted information. You're going to have to take some responsibility for doing some things yourself.

But so you won't have to go all the way to the first post of this thread, I have copied the relevant portion from the first post:

--
For example, there's a music minister serving in Southeast Texas that is publicly known (it's on video and has been through the legal system) to have practiced predatory behavior toward a woman. He was dismissed from a Baptist General Convention of Texas church for his documented actions, was graciously sent to counseling (paid for by the church where he abused his position) and asked to leave the ministry. A few months later he was hired by a Southern Baptists of Texas church 10 miles down the road (the Southern Baptists of Texas congregations allegedly "believe the Bible" like the current SBC leadership). His new congregation has documentation of his issues, yet they gladly have him serve in a position of trust and leadership!

I guess I need to add that I actually grew up in the same church with this minister, know him, his parents and his brother and sister, and was in their home growing up. I also know, and am in contact, with his first wife. (All of us grew up together.) I also heard rumors (about 30 years ago) that he was making the same moves on teen girls as is described in the newspaper accounts, including the older teen sister of a good friend, resulting in a severe beat-down by her brother. I didn't know whether to believe it then, but the accusations seem to be very consistent.

Documentation from the local newspaper:

(WARNING: The description of his actions are explicit)

The Examiner - June 9, 2005 - Page 1

The Examiner - June 9, 2005 - Page 1

The Examiner – July 21, 2005

The Examiner – December 30, 2005 - Page 1

The Examiner – December 30, 2005 - Page 2

--

I don't know either... especially when everything has been so public.

"Libbies" huh? I'd think Bible-believing conservatives would be interested in preventing sexual predators from using church leadership positions as a means to victimize people involved in churches. That's not a "liberal", "moderate" or "conservative" issue.

The whole point of this thread is that the Convention is making a huge issue of whether or not homosexuals are affirmed in a Fort Worth church when they have a publicly-known sexual predator in a leadership position in another Texas church that is tied lock-step to the SBC leadership through the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas.

 

Thanks for the heads up!

Here's the official take on it from the SBC

 

What possible excuse would that be? They certainly can't claim ignorance.

There's testimony, video tape, a plea deal where he admitted his guilt, etc.

Why do you think they want him on staff?