SBC Executive Committee proposes ouster of church over homosexuality

There are two areas to consider. One is the Pastor who has fallen into sin. Scripture does not forbid a return to the pulpit after repentance. How that happens has to be looked at case by case. Second, the man who was involved in public sin prior to conversion. Blameless indicates the current state of his walk not past.

Well hopefully he will clear that up.

Setting time frames is difficult and rather personal opinion. But repentance is repentance.Period

 

First, yes, Scripture does bear out the definition, even in the Greek. Since you brought it up I will quote from the NIGTC by George Knight: "The general characteristic of the bishop is that he must be ἀνεπίλημπτος** (1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17; 6:14; in 3:10 and Tit. 1:6 the synonym ἀνέγκλητος is used), “irreproachable,” in the sense of not open to attack or criticism (see LSJM) in terms of his Christian life in general and in terms of the characteristics that follow in particular. By God’s grace the pattern of the bishop’s life conforms to both the general and specific characteristics and he is not objectively chargeable."

The NAC be Lea says similarly: To be “above reproach” demanded that the overseer be a man of blameless character. The same word (anepilēmpton) is used of widows in 5:7 and of Timothy in 6:14. It may serve as a general, covering term for the following list of virtues that should distinguish a church leader. The etymology of the word suggests the meaning not to be taken hold of. It describes a person of such character that no one can properly bring against him a charge of unfitness.

Second, we can all live up to it. It is not an impossible standard. That's the call of sanctification.

Third, it doesn't qualify sin. We all recognize that not all sin is alike. Stealing a 25 cent pack of gum and stealing a $50,000 car are both breaking laws of stealing, but we treat them very differently. If a man has constant habitual sin in his life, he is likely not qualified, particularly if that sin is public. If a man has a public sin of great magnitude (not that he ran a red light one time), but of a great nature that affects his ability to gain the respect and ear of the community, he is not blameless and is disqualified (see. v. 6).

Paul, on numerous occasions appeals to his own character.

Repentance is repentance, period. But repentance does not always bring restoration. There are consequences of sin in this life. A man who commits adultery may take years to regain the trust of his wife, if he ever regains it. He is not blameless to her, even though she may (and indeed must) forgive him.

Let me ask you: If a man has been convicted of child molestation, and he repents and is saved, is he qualified to pastor? Does he have a good testimony with those outside the church? Obviously he doesn't, and he isn't.

Would you leave your toddler in the nursery with a man who molested children last night but then he repented of it? Of course not. And that shows that you get the point.

The standard to be a pastor is not simply forgiven. It is to be a model of a Christian so that he can say with Paul, "Follow me just as I follow Christ."

It may be that after years of faithful Christian living, a man might regain the status of blameless. But we can't dumb down the word. It means what it means.

When someone says "blameless is about his current" state, that obviously doesn't make sense. It obviously reaches back at least a second, a day or two, and then where do you stop? When does someone regain a blown testimony?

When a pastor stands to preach, he preaches out of his life. If he has no life to imitate, then he has no grounds to preach from. See 1 Thess 4:4-5 on this as well where Paul says, "You know what kind of men we were among you." He is appealing to his past testimony with the people.

 

Back to the Broadway situation ... I have insider knowledge that suggests that Dr. Patterson has been gracious, helpful, and forthcoming to those faculty and staff who are members of Broadway. I hope that is not a duplicitous stance. It seems to me that now that this action has been taken by the Convention, even though the customary practice is for faculty to be members of SBC churches, Dr. Patterson may have, or choose to exercise, the discretion to exempt these persons on the basis that they joined an SBC church in good faith and did not remove themselves from that church. Pastoral considerations would, I hope, think of churches as communities of faith and not merely outlets of the SBC; they are not like McDonald's or Starbucks, where you just go to the most convenient one ... churches are families. And once one has grafted himself on to the family called Broadway Baptist Church, how could compassion expect him to go join somewhere else? In fact, I would suppose that the pastor of the "somewhere else" might not even want a reluctant new member.

What do readers think Dr. Patterson and/or the trustees will do with this situation? I'd like to think they will do nothing!

 

There are always critics of the SBC who are quick to point out that it tolerates churches in its fellowship that are calvinistic, or charismatic, or have women pastors, or have homosexual members, etc. Yet when the SBC makes a decision to no longer accept funding from such churches, it is criticized for its action.

The SBC is "damned if it does and damned if it doesn't."

 

And at the end even all those standing in opposite fields are son, daughters, husbands, wives, moms, dads, grandmothers, grandfathers, etc.

While I too have issues with a great many people, I absolutely praise God for our shared humanity.

 

I have insider knowledge that Dr. Patterson was asked about this issue directly. His first response was that he would not pursue these faculty members and force them to decide between their church and their job at the seminary. The next day he said that he could not guarantee that they would not be forced to decide. He may have been referring to his trustees who could vote to force the issue regardless of what he might want to do. So, we'll have to wait and see how the situation works itself out.

Tim Reynolds

 

There is a difference between has and had. Repentance, like salvation, needs to have some evidence of it.

This is a problem with people not God.

I would not get wrapped up in the timing.

This is a huge problem in the church today. We have far to many people who are treated like second class kingdom citizens because the church will not let go of their past. It is a sad thing to be sure. And when I talk to people about this issue who are neither saved nor attend church they most always ask "what about forgiveness".

You have not show that it supports your own interpretation.

The word blameless speak to whether or not the man can be found guilty of current sin. Can he be arrested, accused of a current crime.

It makes clear sense tho those who sit and give it any thought. Is there a sin that is current, unrepentant, and unaddressed.

This fails to address my point. A man with no godly character has no business in the pulpit. It serves no purpose to use the extreme example.

 

The SBC chose to accept CP money from a church that brought in the Mormon bishop to teach each year for about 25 years.

 

Ro 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Ro 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Ro 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Ro 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

 

My insider source reports that indeed there has been an understanding all around that the seminary (president? trustees?) would expect the charter provisions to be kept strictly in this case. Apparently several of those involved are already in the process of moving to a particular church, a relatively new one, which espouses inerrancy and is in general sympathy with the SBC outlook, but which does not hold with the punitive style. I prefer not to reveal the name of that church at this point.

I continue to feel grief at the ongoing rigidities in the SBC, but am glad that I can operate in another frame of reference now. All I really need from SBC is for Guidestone to stay solvent!

 

What is so difficult to understand about the homosexual agenda. No one is trying to make maliciousness a political and national norm. No one is campaigning to make gluttony or many of the others as a human rights issue. But they are doing that with homosexuality, they are now beginning to do that with childrens rights. And if anything else listed ever became a political national agenda then such a focus would be placed on them as well. But then of course you already knew that.

 

...I think somebody just got zapped by the third rail!

 

I will add that not all sins are equal. Sexual sins are particularly heinous in God's eyes.

 

Ever wonder why?

 

Actually that is your assumption however I did not say that. And this seems to ignore the actual agenda that works to seep its way into our schools, government, and churches.

One has nothing to do with the other and certainly misses the object of my point. Try again.

Not to be homosexual

They are to be reared by the parents not the UN

It is all the same.

It is your unfounded assertion that no one is concerned but the homosexual agenda is clearly on a much larger move and will have a greater impact than the others. Having a nigger concern for a bigger problem is not equal to no concern for anything else.

Hyperbole with no foundation.

Sour grapes