SBC Executive Committee proposes ouster of church over homosexuality

Sure, but that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not they should be trying to force this church into their mold. And Broadway has resisted and will almost certainly continue to resist.

Sure, many of us have paid a person price and a corporate price for not going along with the so-called "Conservative Resurgence" of the last 30 years.

A person or a church can certainly do what is right as well as point out that unjust things are happening. That's part of the resistance that you've just encouraged.

Not me. I fought the politics in the SBC until the mid-1990s and then checked out of Southern Baptist life. Technically, our church [I do not attend Broadway] is still Southern Baptist because some of our church members contribute to the SBC as one of our three disbursement options for giving, but we don't use the SBC literature or participate in much beyond the Lottie Moon offering for Foreign Missions.

It's about weak leadership in other places, not in churches that are being attacked. Churches wouldn't be attacked if they were pawns of the denomination.

I certainly disagree with a number of the members in the congregation (many of them now former members) who agitated for affirmation of homosexual unions (and lost the vote), but this whole thing really isn't about homosexuality. It's about denominational power over churches.

I agree.

 

The "significant number" was a majority of the membership, and that vote led to quite a few members departing the congregation.

I'm not sure how you can say they haven't taken a stand.

Actually, he's a minister of music.

I was merely pointing out that the SBC likes to hide behind autonomy when they would have to take action against a friendly church (the church with the sexual predator is a member of the "conservative" state convention that is tied lock-step with the SBC leadership) while Broadway Baptist has historically been a church that resisted the so-called "Conservative Resurgence" from the very beginning.

Apparently in the Southern Baptist Convention today, politically like-minded churches are autonomous and churches who differ in denominational politics are accountable to the denomination.

That's hypocritical. The SBC either needs to say they hold churches accountable and then do it or else respect the autonomy of the local church uniformly.

And for what it's worth, I think sexual predators are much worse than persons caught in a sexually-active homosexual lifestyle.

 

They don't. They provide financial support to the SBC.

 

Nope.

They are simply allowing sinners to be members. Does you church exclude sinners?

Churches should discipline and restore church members who are involved in inappropriate sexual activity (as it is discovered), but having inappropriate sexual feelings (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is a part of the human experience. All Christians have to deal with it and learn not to act on their feelings or temptations.

 

Since they didn't do it, it shows they do not affirm a homosexual lifestyle.

That should be the end of the issue. Of course it won't be since facts don't matter to the Executive Committee of the SBC. The real issue isn't homosexuality, but they know they can get the messengers at the convention all worked up over it.

Since they don't, you can rest easy.

CP monies has not and will not be used that way. And frankly, since the convention messengers usually rubber-stamp anything the Executive Committee recommends, CP monies will not pay the salaries of anyone who attends this particular church who does not affirm homosexual relations.

 

You can see it all the way from South Carolina?

So how do you determine what a "homosexual lifestyle" is? I'm guessing these members were not participating in inappropriate PDA or sexual activity in public. Do you use the same standards with members who are perceived to be heterosexual? Are unmarried men and women who publicly spend time together automatically assumed to be in an immoral sexual relationship? Certainly, some of them might be, but why do you assume that most are guilty instead of dealing with it as there is evidence?

 

Nope.

If that's what you get from what I'm saying, you need to go back and read more carefully.

 

Are they?

You seem to be an expert on their situation:

Not only do you claim (1) to know what is going on inside the church, you also know that (2) those in the congregation who have homosexual impulses are purposefully acting on their impulses. Moreover, you somehow know that (3) they have no thought of repenting AND (4) they snub their noses at God.

Maybe, maybe not. But how do you know?

Well I don't and neither does God... but you don't seem to be comprehending what I've been saying.

 

I agree.

I also think there is someone wrong when someone is a knee-jerk reactionary and makes assumptions and accusations about the options and positions of others instead of actually reading what is more or less clearly explained.

You may not agree with my understanding of the nature of homosexual attraction, but that doesn't give you the right to claim that I affirm homosexuality.

I've taken quite a bit of heat and have had many difficult conversations with homosexually-oriented friends and acquaintances over the years over these very issues, so it is especially galling to be accused of affirming homosexuality when I have so explicitly stated my position.

 

I have only a few quibbles with rbell's analysis. I'm not a fan of Broadway's leadership or the attitude I've encountered with Broadway.

However I could say the same about many churches, including some churches that are strong supporters of the SBC leadership.

Ultimately, the recommendation for the ouster of Broadway is essentially about convention politics and some of the things rbell listed rather than homosexuality.

Homosexuality is simply the latest hot button used as a smokescreen to hide the real issues and get knee-jerk reactions from convention messengers so they will rubber-stamp the efforts of the Executive Committee to make an example of Broadway as a lesson to those who don't follow the tune of the SBC leadership.