Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Most Important Thing Happening Right Now in the Southern Baptist Convention

Pretty pretentious (or portentious?) title, huh?

The most important thing happening in SBC current events right now is the Executive Committee's consideration of whether Broadway Baptist Church, Fort Worth, TX, is or is not in "friendly cooperation" with the Southern Baptist Convention. Why do I believe this to be the most important thing presently ongoing in the SBC?

Do I believe that this case is important because homosexuality is the most important issue presently facing our convention? No. The SBC's answer to the question of homosexuality is, for the moment, clear. We'll see where it stands one generation from now, with researcher after researcher declaring an upcoming generation of "evangelicals" who are "more tolerant on issues such as gay rights and homosexuality" (John Turner, quoted in Christianity Today online article here). But I think we have reason to hope that the Southern Baptist Convention is distinct enough from evangelicalism at large to stick with the Bible while evangelicalism slides off into public relations. Whatever. But my point here simply is that the SBC, before showing Broadway Baptist Church the door, is already sufficiently on-the-record on the question of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is an important issue, but not nearly the most important issue facing us at present. But there are issues involved in this case that are very important for Southern Baptists.

Biblical Church Discipline and Regenerate Church Membership are among them. The very heart of this case is the idea that Broadway Baptist Church is responsible for those whom it admits into membership. Reports indicate that one of the most important questions posed in the last EC meeting simply asked Broadway's representatives something along the lines of, "If you knew for certain that a person seeking membership were an ongoing, active, unrepentant homosexual, would you still receive that person into membership?" It is a good question, and the committee did not receive a good answer, to my knowledge.

Broadway's defense, up to this point, has been that it has never taken any sort of a vote to place the church in favor of homosexuality. Unless it does something like that, Broadway's representatives argue, it has not "act[ed] to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior." (SBC Constitution, Article III). I'm hoping that the Executive Committee is preparing to decide that a church is indeed acting to affirm, approve, or endorse behavior when (a) the church knows full well that its members are engaged in that behavior, and yet (b) no disciplinary action whatsoever is taken by the church with regard to that behavior—no preaching, no formal disciplinary action, not even any passing over such a one for positions of responsibility in the congregation.

I believe that this action, if taken, will be an important milestone in our needed strengthening of biblical ecclesiology within our convention. It will be a clarion call to our churches to remember that membership does matter and that we are indeed responsible for the spiritual health of all of those who are members in our congregation. Particularly this is true for those of us in church leadership "who will give an account" (Hebrews 13:17) for these folks. At least with regard to homosexuality, the message from our convention will be clear: Loving and redemptive discipline toward known practicing homosexuals in the church is the only biblical option for our churches.

That lesson, once learned with regard to homosexuality, needs to be extrapolated to a great many public and grievous sins that muddle our testimony of Christ, weaken our evangelistic effectiveness, and diminish the holiness of the Bride of Christ.

And that brings us to the final reason why this is the most important thing happening right now in the Southern Baptist Convention: Because this question is all about the local church. We've had a Conservative Resurgence among our national institutions. Similar things need to happen in some of our state conventions. Discussions are underway regarding a Great Commission Resurgence to serve as extension and successor to the Conservative Resurgence. These are all good things. But none of them are the thing that we need most.

What we need is a Local Church Reformation, fomented by Personal Revival for some, and Regeneration for others. To the degree that the case of Broadway Baptist Church reminds us about how profound is the need for reformation and revival in our churches, this is a good thing—indeed, it is the most important thing happening right now in the Southern Baptist Convention.

UPDATE: As it so happens, the good folks over at have just posted an article by Dr. Gary Ledbetter entitled "Is There a Church within Your Church?" I just read the article and I see that it addresses some of the same points that I have addressed in this blog post. The major difference is that Gary's article is so much better written.


Bob Cleveland said...

I agree on the importance of the issue. But almost unnoticed in the brouhaha is that, on any Sunday, 1,000 of their (1,400) members are NOT there.

I know, I know. Lots of reasons. But there's more to it than folks out-of-town, or shut-ins, and nobody seems to care.

HEY!! I gotta come back here more often .. the security word is "PORSH". Close enough, for me....

Nate said...


I have not been to Broadway Baptist Church, so I do not want to speak to poorly of it. I ran across this church a couple of months back when I was looking @ churches in Ft. Worth.

Do you find it interesting that their website talks/shows more about their facilities, organ, history, architecture, etc. than it does about their ministry and purpose? I most definitely did. Not to mention that Cecil Sherman was once their pastor.

Les Puryear said...


You're right. Dr. Ledbetter's post is well written, but your is also.

Our church will not knowingly add to membership someone who has not repented of biblical sin. That includes substance abusers, adulterers, and yes, homosexuals.

IMHO, if a church knowingly adds to their body through membership anyone who has not repented of their sin and turned to Christ, then that church is no longer a church but a social club.

I add the word "knowingly" to my statements because even through examination prior to adding people to membership, unrepentant people will slip through. I think that is the better understanding of the "wheat and tares" parable. I don't believe Jesus meant that the church should knowingly add tares to the body.

Thanks for the post.


Nate said...

And how about those Baylor Bears. Knocking off the Conference Champs. Way to go!

Anonymous said...

The biggest problem: Broadway Baptist Church leaders are not telling the truth.

Money is the root and the reason for Broadway Baptist Church's balancing act with the Southern Baptist Convention. If Broadway does not remain in friendly cooperation with the SBC it will lose its professional music staff because four of them teach at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. They need that staff to draw the large choir and maintain the professional music program with the magnificent organ donated by Van Cliburn, the most famous of their several openly homosexual members. Mr. Cliburn attends with his openly gay partner.

Broadway is transgressing both the spirit and the letter of the SBC's policy on homosexual behavior. Official SBC policy says "Christians should oppose ... all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography."

The official letter from the church contains at least two specific lies. ". . . we [Broadway] do not endorse, approve, or affirm homosexual behavior." Broadway (and especially the staff) is very vocal in telling those members who openly practice homosexual behavior that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Jorene Swift taught a Wednesday series which concluded homosexual behavior is not a sin. The staff ostracizes any member who believes or is outspoken about homosexual behavior being a sin. Those members are asked to leave.

The news articles state, "The five [homosexuals] joined Broadway Baptist by letter from other churches, and it only later was discovered they were homosexual, committee members were told." That also is a lie. The fact of their homosexuality was well known when they joined the church. One lesbian is the daughter of a staff member. Two lesbians were even baptized together as a "family."

Broadway has many more than 5 people openly practicing homosexual behavior — and that behavior is approved by the church. One is chair of the Worship Committee and one was chair last year of the Stewardship Education Committee. Several have led in worship on Sunday morning on the platform on many occasions. And all were known to be practicing homosexuals when they joined the church.

The uproar over the directory came when the staff, without church approval, changed the decades-long policy on family photos to include homosexual couples pictured together as families. More than 200 members then asked for a vote to fire the pastor. They lost that vote 499 to 237.

A former member.

Bart Barber said...


Certainly, missing members are a related concept. For some involved in the RCM movement, they seem to think that missing members are the sum total of the RCM movement. I think that the presence of flagrant sin in the membership is a worse problem. But both deserve the attention of Southern Baptists in this day.

Bart Barber said...

Good morning, Nate. If you were to join there, I'd hunt you down and drag you out. All in a very Christian manner, of course.

Nate said...


I'm sure that many here in Norman would do the same! At least I hope so.

So what churches in Ft. Worth would you recommend?

And I guess Scott Drew's showing the Bears where his brother made "the shot" across the street from the Ford Center @ the Cox center really inspired you guys.

Bart Barber said...


Thanks for the kudos. I agree with you that the addition of the word "knowingly" is very important. I don't believe that the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares has to do with ecclesiology (in v. 38 Jesus said "the field is the world," not the church); I believe that it is about religious liberty.

But even if I wouldn't use that passage to defend it, I believe that your statements about not knowingly refusing to address unrepentant sin in the body and about the fact that people will fool the church sometimes and "slip in" are 100% right and I am in total agreement.

Bart Barber said...

Former Broadway Member,

Wow! I knew about the directory, and I knew about the vote, but some of your comments represent the first time that I've heard some of this stuff.

Can I pay your passage to Louisville to speak to this issue from the floor of the convention? ;-) Just this economy, who could afford to pay someone else's way to a convention!

Bart Barber said...


Every year I prepare an NCAA bracket in which the teams are picked by how closely I can connect them with Baptist History. It's a gimmicky thing that I do to amuse the brethren. The bracket never fares very well, but I'd be thrilled to pick the Bears to win it all this year!

Bart Barber said...

As for recommending a Fort Worth church, allow me to say: There are many good churches in Fort Worth, several of which are led by or attended by friends.

Nate said...

Well maybe sometime you can give me some names :). It does appear that I will be @ Southwestern this summer (Lord willing).

When I took my official campus tour I visited North Richland Hills Baptist.

Bart Barber said...

Call me, Nate.

Big Daddy Weave said...

As you know, I've followed the Broadway controversy rather closely from the get-go.

Obviously, we disagree on much here. But, if the SBC desires to be consistent in their approach towards homosexuality, then action must be taken against Broadway. I disagree with that approach. However, as much as I disagree with that approach, I can respect an organization that values consistently sticking to its principles and convictions.

I have observed that Broadway seems to be obsessed with that Organ. Apparently, the choir is a strong constituency within Broadway. The church seems committed to taking whatever steps necessary to protect their members that are SWBTS professors.

If a SWBTS prof is comfortable at such an historic moderate church, why are they still at SWBTS? I just don't get that. I don't get how someone can affirm BFM2000 and then attend a congregation whose former pastor (Brett Younger) and current interim pastor (Charles Johnson) are or were members of the extremely inclusive Alliance of Baptists. We're talking about a church that for a couple of decades now has firmly been at the center of the moderate movement and has been led by those on the progressive-wing of the moderate movement.

Heck, Younger got the job because his predecessor, Stephen Shoemaker, left Broadway for Myers Park, perhaps the most historic truly liberal Baptist church in the South. Before Shoemaker, there was Cecil Sherman, Mr. CBF. Sherman was at the center of the moderate movement. And before Sherman, there was Welton Gaddy. Welton Gaddy has been one of the most visible leaders in the Alliance of Baptists/Southern Baptist Alliance since its founding in 1987.

How many other moderate Baptist congregations can claim such a long list of notable pastors?

Oh and I forgot to mention that John Claypool came before Welton Gaddy. Claypool is a well-known author in mainline Christian circles. He became an Episcopal priest in the mid-80s and taught Homiletics at McAfee until his death just a few years ago - extremely influential among moderate leaders.

Douglas Hudgins of Charles Marsh's award-winning God's Long Summer also pastored Broadway many many years ago.

Given Broadway's history, it is quite surprising to see them pleading with the Executive Committee to not boot them from their "denominational family."

Anonymous said...

Bart and I have had a bit of this conversation before. I, like BDW, cannot see why Broadway would want to stay with the SBC, my conjecture is also that it is because of the SWBTS faculty that attend and that is too me a poor reason.

I read Gary Ledbetter's paper, Is there a Church within your Church. I found it to be well written and on target.

Here is what my Church does.

When an individual or family desires to join our church we have a new members class that they are required to attend, our pastor teaches that class. He covers salvation, Baptism and the doctrines of our church (among other things). the goal is to have 100% regenerate church membership. I imagine it is not perfect but I have not seen anything better!

Once a year we attempt to "clean" our rolls. We call people that have not darkened our door in a while to find out if they have changed churches, moved, or are just not interested in our church any longer. We attempt to find out if they are having family issues that we can help with, or areas that we can minister to them. We try to err on the side of liberality - in that we are careful not to knock them off the roll unless we have a really good reason.

Hopefully we will not have the types of issues that Broadway has and we will keep from having that "Church within our Church"

Jim Champion

Bart Barber said...


I agree that Broadway's determination to remain within the SBC is puzzling. I think that we're scratching our heads because we're looking at this thing from a doctrinal, historical, national perspective. Our "former member" has suggested a local, pragmatic rationale for their actions. Such reasons can be compelling.

I think that they form an important part of the story for historians. It is the local and the pragmatic that often makes us live inconsistently with our principles. These are the factors that make us do the opposite of what one might predict us to do.

Anonymous said...

"If you knew for certain that a person seeking membership were an ongoing, active, unrepentant homosexual, would you still receive that person into membership?"

Omit homosexual, insert "sinner" in its' place. and re-read the paragraph.
Aren't we all perpetual sinners to one degree or another? Just thinking about that.

Bart Barber said...


I think that you miss the meaning and significance of the word "unrepentant." The final words of Matthew 18 make it clear to us that there is no limit either in frequency or iterations of forgiveness for our perpetual sinning within the church.

But, for the person who says, "I don't think this is a sin," or, "Whether it is a sin or not, I'm going to live my life the way I want to," there is discipline that will exclude the persistently unrepentant from the congregation.

Further, for the person who has never been saved there is no church membership.

The person who is deliberately in an ongoing relationship of a homosexual nature is definitionally unrepentant, the ongoing relationship is the equivalent of a plan to continue in sin.

debbiekaufman said...

The person who is deliberately in an ongoing relationship of a homosexual nature is definitionally unrepentant, the ongoing relationship is the equivalent of a plan to continue in sin.

I agree with you here Bart. There is a huge difference in struggling with sin and having a Ray Bolz mentality concerning homosexuality.

Anonymous said...


I know homosexuality is what sells papers in our SBC today, but at what Body Mass Index do we consider it gluttony? I think there are many more gluttonous folks in America than homosexuals, but we seem hung up on homosexuality - to the great disadvantage of those needing to hear from the Lord on their issues - you know, sin...
I think in a hundred years when people look back they will recognize our blind spot here.
How many grossly overweight people can a church baptize before they are not in good standing with the convention? Do they have to lose weight before being baptized? What if the pastor is overweight? DO we need a dietician on the executive committee to make sure this is addressed?
Now I understand the pressure coming from the gay community for acceptance and how much we want to stand up against it, but if it's really the most important thing happening right now in the SBC, shame on us for not having control of our platform!

Trip Rodgers

Bart Barber said...


I recommend that you go back and re-read the original post. Therein you'll find me saying that homosexuality is not the most important issue facing the convention right now. In fact, I said that very thing, point-blank, not once but twice.

I advanced other aspects that made this the most important thing going on in our convention right now. After you go back and read the original post for comprehension, I welcome your interaction with the content of the post.

Bart Barber said...

Thanks, Debbie.

Ron Phillips, Sr. said...


Allow me to make a shameless plug for my my church in Fort Worth. It is Birchman Baptist on the West side of town. We are a Bible centered, expository preaching, mission minded church.


Ron P.

Anonymous said...

I did go back and re-read the post, because it was late (for me) when I read it. But I find this morning that I still think that no matter how much you boldface the 2 other areas you mention, your focus is on homosexuality. All I was wanting to say was that we (the SBC) are having the agenda set for us by an outside group, instead of us focusing on the gospel.
However, I do realize that blogging is not the center of our efforts, so I'm willing to back off of my earlier concerns. I just wish the title weren't "THe Most Important Thing Happening Right Now in the SBC"...
Do have a blessed day. I appreciate your blog and your ministry.

Trip Rodgers

Bart Barber said...


If the words of my post do not indicate what is my focus, then I know not how you would otherwise discern it. This is the most important thing happening in our convention right now because:

1. It is a contest between two views of the church.

Broadway's argument rests upon the presumption that the church is not responsible for who joins it. The church, by that viewpoint, is something of a corporate entity and is no more responsible for the church's membership than the Fort Worth Zoo is responsible for me as a zoo member.

My view, on the other hand, is that of the church as a community of members who are responsible for one another. The community is made up of those who appear to be regenerate saints and it exercises church discipline upon the body when biblically warranted.

The Executive Committee, in order to decide this issue, must choose between one of those viewpoints.

I realize that, in this particular circumstance, homosexuality is the sin involved. I realize that homosexuality is a flashpoint issue. I realize that it might be difficult for a reader to get past the homosexuality issue to see the other items in view. But these are all problems with the reader, not the author.

If you'll go back over the course of my blogging, I think you'll find me writing very little about homosexuality, juxtaposed against copious volumes about ecclesiology. I don't know why it is so difficult for you to see that the ecclesiological issues involved here are indeed a really big deal for me.

2. It illustrates that the Southern Baptist Convention needs to give serious attention to the health of our local churches.

Another initiative dealing with national institutions is not going to help. New curriculum is not going to help. Fundraising strategies are not going to help. Conferences are not going to help. The health of local churches in their order and practice is the pressing need of our day.

Finally, Trip, allow me to add to my assertion that this post is not primarily about homosexuality the concluding disclaimer: "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"

There's not anything wrong with the church addressing the agenda set by the conditions of the world around us. A doctor's agenda is set by the illness presented by the patient. If a collection of pagan San Franciscans are engaging in homosexual activity, then yes, the agenda for them must be the gospel. They're lost. They need to Savior.

On the other hand, if a church—a group of people who claim to have received the gospel—are engaging in and condoning homosexual activity, then the agenda for them is the kind of moral code that fill the pages of the epistles. The gospel is central, and it all relates to the gospel, but the New Testament, you know, didn't end with John. A substantial portion of the remainder of the New Testament was written expressly for the purpose of correcting behavioral problems among Christian believers. Sexual misbehavior received disproportionate emphasis among those passages.

So, if I were to write a post focused on upbraiding Broadway Baptist Church for their acceptance and condoning of homosexual practice, then I would be doing just the sort of thing that the Apostle Paul did over and over. This is not that post, but I don't know that I won't write it someday.

Anonymous said...


The difference between the homosexuality issue and the gluttony issue is that I know of no Baptists who try to re-define gluttony as something other than sinful.

Are there Baptist gluttons? Sure. But everyone of them that I have ever met will say gluttony is sinful, that they struggle with this issue, and that want to do better.

The dynamic with the homosexuality issue is completely different. I won't go through it here, again. It fits in the category of "if you don't already know, I can't tell you."

Finally, the main premise of your original comment is not helpful. Why shouldn't a religious organization address issues that come before it, especially when they involved fundamental moral questions? Sexuality is as old as Genesis 2.

The idea that the church should not address this because it is not addressing something else first, is simply evasion.

I am glad that the SBC has spoken clearly on this.

I have seen several prominent, historical churches in our town torn apart over this. Usually most of the members are opposed to re-defining homosexuality as sinful, but the staff and a minority of the members are not. The denominations to which these churches belong are either in support of re-defining homosexuality as sinful, are vague in their approach, or they have taken a "this is not the most important issue" type approach. Thus, leaving their churches at the mercy of so-called "progressives" in this area.

But, I may say something that you will agree with if you read my next comment.


Anonymous said...


It's clear that Broadway is being hypocritical here. That's so ironic.

Broadway truly embraces homosexuality, but won't say so, because then they wouldn't get to use that fancy organ.

Wow! What a cop out.

If I were gay, I wouldn't attend this church on principle.

If I were advising the convention, and I am not, I would say that the convention should ask Broadway to answer questions in writing (such as the one posed in your comment). If Broadway's answers are obviously false, or are purposely vague so that they can keep the organ playing, so be it.

Let them be dishonest. That's a mark on Broadway. Not the SBC.

The SBC, in my opinion, should not be baited into what will be portrayed as a hyper-technical parsing of words and answering questions. It will be a loss for the SBC.

If Broadway continues to be duplicitous, let that be the story. The SBC should state that until Broadway clearly states that it disagrees with the SBC on the homosexuality issue, that SBC will NOT kick them out.

Broadway comes out the loser in that situation. The SBC comes out the winner.

Broadway will eventually withdraw. Give it time.

In the meantime, the SBC should make sure that Broadway's ability to have any control in the SBC is nil. I suspect that is already the case.

For example, the SBC messengers should make sure never to approve any anyone from Broadway to any position in the Convention until Broadway turns around. I can't imagine any SBC President putting someone from Broadway on the Committee on Committees, and I can't imagine anyone from Broadway ending up on the Nominations Committee or on a report from that committee.

Also, it seems to me that SWBTS could consider the church selection of the profs in its music department.

I just believe that it's a bad strategy for the SBC to take on this church, particularly when the church won't tell the truth about its own convictions.

We may feel that by doing this the SBC will have "taken a stand" or "been consistent". The SBC has already taken a stand. The SBC would act except for the duplicity of this congregation.

Let that be the story.


Bart Barber said...


The wonderful thing about your last comment is that it demonstrates so clearly the difference between that which I'm asserting as less important (Broadway's stance on homosexuality) and that which I'm asserting as most important (church discipline, regenerate church membership, and the meaning and needs of the local church).

Unfortunately, you've done so by agreeing with me on the lesser thing (homosexuality) and discarding what is more important (ecclesiology).

Broadway has made a clear statement already. It has welcomed into membership and leadership members known to the church to be practicing homosexuals. Words could never speak so clearly or with such volume.

Anonymous said...


I was just reflecting on this.

Broadway's actions are clearly the product of Cecil Sherman's discipleship at that church.

If you want to see where the SBC would be if it had followed the moderate course, look at the church of the moderate leader.

It's classic. Not only has the church reject God's pattern for morality, as clearly set forth in the Bible. The church does not even have the fortitude to state its convictions clearly. I can think of no better example of the moderate mindset.

Also, the way this entire debate is going is also reminescent of the CR.

Most folks in the SBC knew (by experience) that there were liberals in the schools and other places of denominational service.

The moderates never wanted to get down to brass tacks on that. You never heard any group of professors hold press conferences, come out and clarify or renounce what they believed etc.

Instead, the moderates waged a campaign of 1) attacking those who were concerned, and 2) technical word games about the meaning of the words "liberal", "infallible", "inerrant".

The post you have written harkens back to the 2) point in that strategy.

It's hard to have an honest conversation with someone is intent on hiding what he believes.

This entire exchange with Broadway is exactly that.

I feel that I am listening to a press conference held by Cecil Sherman, Bill Sherman and Welton Gaddy circa 1980.

I had a friend who asked Cecil Sherman one time after the CR was over whether the SBC should have doctrinal standards for employees of the agencies.

Dr. Sherman's answer was, yes. The employee should "good faith and good sense."

My friend asked what Dr. Sherman meant by good faith and good sense. Dr. Sherman replied "Good faith, good sense."

My friend asked, "Whose faith, whose sense." To which Dr. Sherman responded, "Good faith, good sense."

I believe that Broadway learned well from its one time pastor. Broadway will mutter, "Good faith, good sense" until it is no longer in its interest to do so, or when someone with the conscience of his or her convictions becomes the pastor of that church and leads it to declare publicly what we all knows it believes.

I cannot imagine belonging to any organization that would not stand up straight for what it believes.

But then, again, I never have belonged to an organization that had been so schooled for so many years on how to avoid answering straightforward questions or how to avoid "saying what one meant", as Lewis Carroll (sp?) said in Alice in Wonderland.

In other words, I have never been in a church pastored by a moderate leader like the one who led Broadway just a few years ago.

Thank God we did not follow his prescription for leadership in the SBC.


Anonymous said...


Not meaning to discard your other point.

In the reading I had done on this, Broadway had not yet answered the $64,000 question.

If their answers are clear and unambiguous, then it's an easy call.

I just don't think that the SBC will be well served getting into a word game with a church that has not been able to utter what we all know they believe.


Anonymous said...

Louis Said
The difference between the homosexuality issue and the gluttony issue is that I know of no Baptists who try to re-define gluttony as something other than sinful.

Are there Baptist gluttons? Sure. But everyone of them that I have ever met will say gluttony is sinful, that they struggle with this issue, and that want to do better.

Louis have ever visited with david worley who blogs and goes by volfan007.

Anonymous said...


I have not visited with David, Volfan.

I did read his post that you cited.

In that post he says he is NOT a glutton and doesn't approve of gluttony.

He comes from a large family, apparently, and has tried to watch his weight, and has lost 15 or so pounds over recent years.

Being large is not sinful. Gluttony is.

I will certainly join you in trying to correct any pastor who is preaching the joys of gluttony, that people are born gluttons, and that they cannot help it. So, the church should just not talk about gluttony anymore.

I just can't find anyone saying that.

But if you keep working on it, I am sure you'll find someone out there who is preaching that.

Keep me posted.


volfan007 said...

Wow, how did I did into the middle of this? I was just minding my own business.

I think I'll go and eat supper now.



volfan007 said...


Also, I want to say thanks for representing me well to Anonymous Skinny Person who was misrepresenting me.

Thanks, Louis

Big Daddy Weave said...

So Louis blames Cecil Sherman. Wow.

Sherman, after all, led the CBF to pass the anti-gay policy that forbids the CBF from hiring gays and lesbians to their staff and appointing gays and lesbians to serve as missionaries here and abroad...

That particular policy royally ticked off the gay-friendly progressive wing of the moderate movement. If you insist on "blaming" someone, blame Brett Younger or Stephen Shoemaker.

And then you write:

"I cannot imagine belonging to any organization that would not stand up straight for what it believes."

By organization, I assume you mean Broadway? The fact is that the congregation is divided over the issue of homosexuality at Broadway. The former pastor, Brett Younger, acknowledged that fact in a sermon during the Church Directory Controversy. You obviously find such diversity unacceptable but that doesn't mean the diversity does not exist. Broadway can't "stand up for what it believes" on this particular issue if the church is truly divided.

Les said...

For the congregation to be divided is symptomatic of leadership that is not convicted by the Truth of the Scripture. This is true regardless of whether the subject is gluttony,adultery,sanctity of life,homosexuality, or any other point of Bible Truth bent for the convenience of said church.