SBC Executive Committee proposes ouster of church over homosexuality

Well I think we've identified the "third rail of SBC politics."

Homosexuality is that third rail. Patterson used it in his ouster of the WBA. If you oppose the esconed fundamentalist leadership you're a homosexual rights advocate.

Is what it is...they've been looking for ways of getting rid of Broadway for awhile.

 

I have nothing to do with the SBC, but this has nothing to do with autonomy. The denomination can associate with whomever they want to. If they don't want to associate with a church, then they don't have to. Disagree if you wish, but don't say it is violating autonomy. They aren't telling the church what to do.

 

Might I suggest the plural of presidents is perhaps a bit too generous. I would say president. Patterson has made outwardly hostile towards them.

Hemphill was a good president. He tried to build bridges. Patterson is a theological thug. He's only happy with compliance.

I enjoyed attending Broadway for special events while in seminary (I had many friends in musical ensembles.) I love the church. I also enjoyed many of the people I encountered. These are good people. Say what you want but they are people who are good, earnest people. Their leadership might be pushing back, but I enjoyed meeting the people.

 

In the past, there have been a lot of seminary professors attending Broadway.


Back when I was I was in Fort Worth I attended a few services at Broadway, usually at the request of a professor. Very liturgical service. It's okay, but not my frame of reference.

 

Then be strong enough to resist if you don't want to. They can't force you to do anything unless you have a weak pastor and a weak congregation.

But again, if you don't like it, resist. There is always a price to pay for doing what you think is right. If you think it's right, then do it, and don't complain about the fallout. That's why the SBC is political. You guys let it be political.

Be a church, not a pawn of the denomination, if that's what you want to be. This is about weak leadership at the church level, it sounds to me. The church may well be in the wrong, and it certainly sounds they have not been forthcoming (and again I speak as one outside the SBC who could not care less about what happens). But you can't complain about denominational politics and then play the political game. There's a price to pay for doing what you think it is right. And you have to be willing to sink the ship over it.

 

I don't see anywhere where Broadway church denied that it welcomed and affirmed homosexuals--both as members and as member couples.

Even so, putting pictures of gay couples in the church directory was apparently too much affirmation for a significant number of members.

I guess my question is, should any congregation be allowed to condone any aberrant lifestyle without condemnation by other churches in cooperation with it, in the name of autonomy?

Baptist Believer points out some apparent inconsistencies by the SBC, in condemning Broadway Baptists for welcoming gays, but not disassociating from another church with a sexual predator as pastor.

But I perceive some inconsistency on his part, as well, particularly in defending Broadway's autonomy, but not that of the church with the predator pastor. Is one sexual sin not quite as worthy of condemnation as another?

 

It has nothing to do with autonomy.
They withdrew fellowship from a church apparently support homosexuality, would that be by allowing unrepentant homosexual members? I don't know more.
It seems to be popular now a days to allow unrepent openly sinful lifestyles in church membership.

Thsi shows acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

 

I wonder why it took an action by the SBC Executive Committee to bring this to a head. Since Broadway Baptist is at odds with the SBC's stated policy defining cooperation, why did it not just simply say "we're outa here." a long time ago.

I've never understood why individual congregations can adopt all sorts of strange doctrines and practices, yet want to remain affiliated with a group with which it strongly disagrees.

 

The finacial support they can get.

 

what finacial support do they get from the SBC?

 

I have some knowledge of this situation because my parents were members of Broadway until they moved back to Nashville. I have worshiped there many times. We had a memorial service for my father at Broadway in May. Several members of the congregation are or used to be members of the faculty at Southwestern Seminary. Several of them helped with Dad's service.

The issue was not raised by the church. It was raised by the gay members who wanted their pictures included in the "family" section of the directory. Apparently some members knew that these members were gay, but it was not public knowledge. It was not promoted nor was it affirmed. They were simply members who happened to be gay. The uproar that followed has cost Broadway about 300 members. Although the former pastor won a confidence vote by a substantial margin, he decided to leave anyway. The church is still trying to gather itself in order to move ahead with its ministry which is significant.

Paige Patterson's role in this is to try to force the few remaining Southwestern faculty members at Broadway to make a choice between their job and their church. Patterson is making a power play, and at the moment he has the leverage to do it.

If the SBC withdraws fellowship from Broadway, it will be the first time that they have ever done so to a church that wanted to remain in the SBC. There are some pastors of large churches on the Executive Committee. I have to wonder whether any of them have gays in their churches, and whether they know who they are. Do any of you here at the BB ask people seeking membership in your churches about their sexual orientation? I have never been in a church that did so, nor have I ever heard of a church that did. That leaves the possibility open for churches to vote in homosexual members without knowing about it. That is Broadway's situation. Can you say with confidence that your situation is different?

As for Pastor Larry who said that Broadway should stand up to Patterson and the SBC without regard to consequences, I would like to ask about a church's obligation to its members. In the past, my church has had numerous employees of various SBC agencies in our membership. At the moment we have only about 5 or 6. Over they last few years we have had several calls for us to completely cut ties with the SBC. If we did, these members would have to move to other churches in order to continue their employment. We would be telling them that their membership and service to our congregation did not matter. It was more important for us to make a point to the SBC. Instead, we have maintained our affiliation with the SBC. Keeping these members is more important to us than making a point to the SBC. There is another Baptist church a few miles from us who made this kind of choice. They lost a couple of dozen members because of it. Some of them joined our church, and they have talked about how hurt they were by what they were forced to do. Patterson is putting Broadway in a similar situation.

Tim Reynolds

 

allowing members who happen to be gay is the church approving of homosexuality.

 

Putting their pictures in the church directory obviously shows an affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. I don't blame Dr. Patterson. And, how could these professors remain affliated with this church and maintain any type of credibility? And, why would any professing Christian who is employed by a SBC agency want to remain in a church that affirms homosexuality. To tell the truth, I don't want the money my church gives to the cooperative program to pay the salary of those who would willingly attend such a church.

 

On the other hand, those Yankee Baptists were wrong wrong wrong when they excluded us for our welcoming and affirming stance towards slaveholding.

 

The autonomy of the church is in no way compromised. The church can go on doing just as it pleases. It may have to do it without being associated with the convention. But let's be honest about the reason for this thread. If you go back and look it is not so much about Broadway but a liberal opportunity to bash Dr. Patterson. I mean if we want to get to the heart of the matter and all.