Tuesday, May 25, 2010

A Step in the Right Direction for the BGCT

The Dallas Morning News is reporting that The Baptist General Convention of Texas has disfellowshipped Royal Lane Baptist Church over the church's stance regarding homosexuality. Royal Lane has apparently acquiesced to the BGCT's further request that the church cease to identify itself on its website and in publications as a BGCT-affiliated congregation.

This is a very positive step that ought to be celebrated. The disfellowshipping of congregations should be a matter accomplished at the associational level (and the Dallas Baptist Association has taken action alongside the BGCT) and then allowed to percolate up through state convention and national convention tiers. As more local associations and state conventions begin to take responsibility for these cases, the health of Southern Baptist churches will increase.

As positive a step as it is, it still remains, however, just a step and not the whole journey.

Royal Lane BC came under the BGCT microscope earlier this year when the Dallas Morning News put the church's espousal of homosexuality onto the public record. In this way, Royal Lane's situation is strikingly parallel to that of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, which the SBC disfellowshipped at last summer's annual meeting, but which remains within the BGCT. Broadway also gained widespread attention from a news media report about its stance regarding homosexuality—in its case for its ultimately abandoned attempt to photograph homosexual couples in its church directory.

The similarities between the two cases include:

  1. Both churches have been growing increasingly affirming of homosexuality for several years.
  2. Neither church has made any official change to the church's statement of faith regarding human sexuality (or, at least, no such change has been mentioned in the public record in either case, as far as I can find).
  3. Both churches have several openly homosexual individuals who not only attend but also are church members.
  4. Both churches have placed openly homosexual individuals into leadership positions within the church.
  5. Both churches have historically been influential churches in the life of the BGCT, having members employed by Baptist entities and having contributed several people to BGCT boards and committees through the years.

In the light of these similarities, it is curious to see the different manner in which the BGCT has handled these two cases. The BGCT did not disfellowship Broadway, but instead employed the church's failure to send messengers to the 2009 Annual Meeting as an excuse to do nothing at present. Today's action regarding Royal Lane clearly demonstrates what careful students have known all along—that Baptist cooperative bodies can indeed take disciplinary action to withdraw fellowship from member churches even apart from refusing to seat messengers from those churches.

Why the differences in the treatment of the two churches? According to the news report, the BGCT seems to have treated Royal Lane more harshly because the North Dallas church has taken the additional step of having ordained two openly homosexual individuals as deacons. Both the BGCT's statements and the rebuttal by Doug Washington, Royal Lane member and BGCT Executive Board member, suggest that the two homosexual deacons constituted the major point of contention in the discussion.

The BGCT's apparent position, divined from the respective treatment of these two churches, seems to be that BGCT churches may welcome openly unrepentant and ongoing homosexuals into membership and may promote those individuals into leadership, but those churches may not ordain those individuals into service as deacons or pastors, lest they be disfellowshipped from the BGCT. Ordination has become the BGCT line in the sand.

It seems to me a difficult thing to support this position biblically. The Bible certainly does propose to us a set of standards to qualify deacons and overseers, but none of them suggests that ordination is the point at which previously embraced homosexuality is no longer to be permitted. Indeed, although homosexuality is roundly condemned in Testaments New and Old, and although Jesus Himself in the gospels presents marriage as the union of man and woman, the concept of homosexuality is nowhere broached as a matter that pertains to service as pastor or deacon rather than as a matter that pertains to the basic sexual morality expected by God of all the redeemed.

So, whatever it is that the Bible says about homosexuality, it says it not to "the ordained" alone, but to all Christians. If any difference is made between deacons and pastors on the one hand and lay people on the other hand with regard to homosexuality, it cannot be a difference in what the Bible commands but can only be a difference in how seriously we expect Christians to take biblical commandments with regard to their own behavior.

Ironically, to draw the line at homosexual ordination is to do violence to the Baptist distinctive of the priesthood of all believers. To draw the line at homosexual ordination is to make two classes of believers in the church—a class of ordained "clergy" and "deacons" for whom obedience to biblical sexual standards matters, and a class of unordained "laity" who can be prominent and leading members of the congregation—celebrated members, even—for whom obedience to biblical sexual standards does not matter.

Any such system of distinction must be entirely a creation of human tradition. According to the New Testament, every Christian is a believer-priest and each Christian is called equally to holiness, for alongside the royal priesthood we are named as a holy nation in 1 Peter 2. Clearly, no biblical warrant exists for toleration of homosexuality up to the bright line of ordination.

Perhaps this lack of biblical foundation is why so many denominations, once they have decided to permit homosexuality except among the ordained, have inexorably kowtowed at that restriction as well. Refusal to ordain homosexuals who are otherwise welcome to belong and serve in a congregation has never constituted a destination, but always has been a mere waypoint.

The question before the BGCT today is simply which direction the denomination is going from this waypoint—which destination lies before them. My differences with the BGCT on other matters notwithstanding, I'm hopeful that the remaining conservatives within the BGCT are finding their backbone and that the direction of movement is toward a thoroughly consistent BGCT policy toward BGCT churches that abandon the biblical position on the question of homosexuality. Perhaps some of my readers will speculate to the contrary that the BGCT will eventually follow the trail blazed by the Episcopalians and so many others toward an entire embrace of homosexuality.

This much is certain: We'll know the answer to that question based upon what happens to Broadway Baptist Church's affiliation with the BGCT.

28 comments:

Joe Blackmon said...

This is great news, well, great news for real Christians anyway. I'm sure the moderate wing of the SBC are sorely disappointed. However, those people who would oppose this are cut from the same cloth as those that say the Bible isn't inerrant, deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and claim that we have no right to proclaim the exclusivity of salvation in Christ. In other words, people whose opinions don't matter.

Bart Barber said...

Ahh, Joe, but ALL of our opinions matter a great deal, for we will all have to answer for them before God.

Joe Blackmon said...

You're right, of course. It was just a way for me to get a dig in on the moderate/mainstream crowd. :-)

David R. Brumbelow said...

The BGCT and the Dallas Baptist Association obviously made the right decision in disfellowshipping Royal Lane Baptist Church for affirming homosexuality.

Royal Lane, however, apparently remains in good standing with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. I wonder what decision the CBF is going to make in this matter?
David R. Brumbelow

Joe Blackmon said...

David,

I would bet you a Hardee's Thickburger and a Large Sweet Tea that they will do exactly nothing about it. After all, when has biblical truth or correct biblical doctrine ever mattered to the Cooperate_with_anyone Baptist Fellowship.

Christiane said...

Hi Bart,

Is the reason for 'disfellowshipping' the Royal Lane Church that this church is providing pastoral care for its homosexual brothers and sisters?

If not, is there another reason?

Bart Barber said...

Christiane,

I certainly hope not, since I and my church provide pastoral care for homosexuals. Our pastoral care consists first of calling them to repentance from homosexuality, which is the right and biblical starting place.

It is the opposite of pastoral care—it is malfeasance of the pastoral office—to encourage, affirm, or minimize sin in those under one's pastoral care.

The particular problem with homosexuality that separates it from so many other sins is simply that people are daring to contradict God and declare that it is not a sin. If a man commits adultery it is one thing; if he declares an Adultery Pride Day it is another thing. Both are wrong. Either compromises the purity of the church, but the latter further compromises the message of the church and the definition of the church.

Christiane said...

Hi Bart,

Thank you for responding.
Did the Royal Lane Church, as a Christian community, actively engage in a 'Gay Pride' activity and is that the reason that they were disfellowshipped?

From your answer, that would be my assumption. Is this what happened specifically with the Royal Lane Church ?

BTW special thanks for helping me understand, as I know you are a busy person.

Bart Barber said...

Christiane,

I was not involved in the decision, belonging as I do to another convention. I cannot speak directly and authoritatively to the BGCT's rationale, other than to analyze the public reports.

As I wrote in the original post, one might infer from the press report that the BGCT acted as it did because Royal Lane has ordained as deacons two people who apparently do not consider homosexual behavior to be a sin and who are openly practicing and unrepentant homosexuals. The explicit statement of Royal Lane's representative in the news article was to suggest that calling homosexual behavior a sin was to suggest that God made a mistake in creating these people. I do not think it is a stretch to infer that he is defending the viewpoint that God deliberately creates people to behave in a homosexual manner, and that such behavior is therefore not sinful.

Anonymous said...

Bart:

Thanks for the post.

Thanks also for your response to Christiane, though I know it is hard for you to get into the mind of the BGCT and state why it acted as it did.

As an elder, I receive several written prayer requests from people in the congregation each week.

Among the requests, it is not unusual to find a request from someone struggling with sexual temptations, including homosexual temptations.

I agree with what you said about the pastoral office.

If I failed to pray for these people, to help them struggle against ungodly behavior, I would be not be a faithful undershepherd to these people. If instead, I told them that God made them homosexual and I encouarged them to participate in homosexual acts or gave them license by saying that God allows it because He made them that way, I would not be pastoring them. I would be hurting them terribly. It would be a complete abdication of my resonsibility, as well as Jesus' teaching.

Of course the CBF is not going to say or do anything about any doctrinal issue.

As far as the CBF is concerned, the CBF has no doctrinal statement to begin with. Accordingly, CBF and it churches (or individuals) do not have a confessional basis for their relationship.

That is the fundamental distinction between the SBC and the CBF. The CBF does not have and does not seek to have a common confession. The rest of the differences are just details that flow from that difference.

It's not just that "this is not their hill", as BH asserts.

The CBF has no hill.

Louis

Joe Blackmon said...

BH

Any Christian that does not affirm homosexuality to be a sin 100% of the time without any exceptions whatsoever stands in opposition to what is clearly taught in scripture. Now, they might be ignorant and not know what scripture teaches. However, and I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb here, the folks at Royal Lane know what the Bible says. However, in contrast to the response of real Christians, they choose to ignore it and tell people that their sin is not sin. Unlike real Christians, they don't call these folks to repent of their sin and trust Christ as their Savior. "You can be gay, engaging in homosexual activity, and be a Christian" is a lie and Royal Lane is a church filled with liars, since that is their obvious stance on the situation.

Further, it doesn't matter who the Cooperate_with_anyone Baptist Fellowship will or will not cooperate with. Their willingness to cooperate with others regardless of what those others believe is not a trait to be admired but a sin to be repented of. If someone is going to claim to be a Christian, they have an obligation to stand for the truth as it is revealed in the Bible.

Now, for someone like you who beleives that the Bible is just an errant collection of scattered, loosely related ancient documents that don't really MEAN anything, the idea of cooperating with someone doesn't involve things like integrity or faithfulness to the Gospel. In contrast, real Christians proclaim the truth of the Bible and will not cooperate with those that are unfaithful to its teachings.

David R. Brumbelow said...

Joe & Louis,
I imagine both of you are right about the CBF. But it will remain interesting evidence of their convictions or lack thereof.

Louis, I guess you could say their “hill” is that there is no hill.

For anyone wondering about references to hills, see "A Hill On Which To Die" by Judge Paul Pressler; B&H.
David R. Brumbelow

Anonymous said...

David:

You are correct. Their hill is to have no hill.

Louis

bapticus hereticus said...

Louis: [1] As far as the CBF is concerned, the CBF has no doctrinal statement to begin with. Accordingly, CBF and it churches (or individuals) do not have a confessional basis for their relationship ... [2] The CBF has no hill.

bapticus hereticus: [2] I am surprised, Louis, that you would respond with such a low level of discourse. The following is the mission statement of CBF:

“The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is a fellowship of Baptist Christians and churches who share a passion for the Great Commission of Jesus Christ and a commitment to Baptist principles of faith and practice. Our mission is to serve Christians and churches as they discover and fulfill their God-given mission.”

That CBF is not your cup of tea is one thing, but to suggest it has nothing to which it considers important is quite something else. Secondly, your statement reflects a limited knowledge of CBF; consider the following from the organization:

“CBF is not a denomination but rather a fellowship of churches and Christians. There are many individuals who are part of the Fellowship but who are in churches that do not partner with CBF. Valuing autonomy and freedom, CBF does not have or exercise authority over its partnering churches and individuals. Consequently, the Fellowship does not have a statement of beliefs nor does it provide an official stance or statement on social issues. Because the Fellowship does not have a named doctrine, partnering churches can vary greatly on their theological beliefs, nonetheless working together through their shared unity in the Fellowship.”

If you would like to read further concerning the CBF and how it operates, you might try the following link: http://www.thefellowship.info/About-Us/FAQ

That CBF differs from SBC is axiomatic, but let us not assume that difference in means equates a rejection of ends.

Joe Blackmon said...

The difference between the CBF and the SBC is pretty obvious to anyone who looks at when the CBF was formed. The moderates realized they had no hope of ever having a real voice in the SBC. Well, most of them did anyway. Due to their unbiblical positions they had been treated like kids at the family reunion--sat at the children's table while the adults, in this case the real Christians, at their meal in peace. That is why the CBF was born.

Further, while every CBF church may not be completely left leaning, would the following churches feel more at home and be welcomed in the CBF or the SBC?

*Churches with women pastors?
*Churches that affirmed homosexuality?
*Churches that maintained that salvation is not exclusive through Christ alone?
*Churches that held to the belief that the Bible "contains" the word of God but it is not the word of God?

Churches with such abhorant, biblically unsupportable doctrinal stances are marginalized in the SBC, and rightly so. Such churches would be welcomed with open arms and without any hesitation whatsoever in the CBF. While all CBF churches may not affirm the above, they most certainly wouldn't deny any of it.

Anonymous said...

BH:

I have not engaged in a low level of discourse.

I said that CBF had no doctrinal statement. That is a correct statement.

Pointing that out and the practical effect of having no doctrinal statement is not a low level of discourse.

You have affirmed the truth of what I said in the very quote that you offer from the CBF -

"Consequently, the Fellowship does not have a statement of beliefs nor does it provide an official stance or statement on social issues. Because the Fellowship does not have a named doctrine, partnering churches can vary greatly on their theological beliefs..."

I do not deny that the CBF says lots of things about itself. I was only pointing out that it has no theological, confessional statement. So, CBF is not going to evaluate the theology of this church, or any church, as a condition for participation. That is not something that CBF does.

Here, again, is what I wrote:

"Of course the CBF is not going to say or do anything about any doctrinal issue.

As far as the CBF is concerned, the CBF has no doctrinal statement to begin with. Accordingly, CBF and it churches (or individuals) do not have a confessional basis for their relationship.

That is the fundamental distinction between the SBC and the CBF. The CBF does not have and does not seek to have a common confession. The rest of the differences are just details that flow from that difference."

That is a correct statement.

People who like the CBF may be overly sensitive about this discussion, not because of any inaccuracy by me or anyone else, but because this situation reveals the weakness of CBF because it has no doctrinal statement.

It may be perhaps that in this instance CBF's intentional avoidance of having any doctrinal confessional unity is a terrible weakness.

The CBF has no way of limiting the participation of Baptist organizations based on any theology they may have.

I see that as a weakness.

I susptect in moments like this even CBF supporters see that as a weakness, and are therefore super- sensitive to anyone pointing it out.


I will say again that CBF has no hill (except to have a hill), and that is a terrible thing.

But I have not invested a penny in CBF and only observe it from afar.

The people who have invested in it and see it in moments like this are the ones that have to pull double duty to try and polish the CBF brand.

I don't know if that applies to you. (If so, get to polishing. I guess I can expect a 4 page reply to my respons).

You can certainly have an opinion. We all can. But I do not believe that any objective, informed observer of this conversaton would see any of this as a low level of discourse.

Louis

bapticus hereticus said...

Louis: I said that CBF had no doctrinal statement. That is a correct statement. Pointing that out and the practical effect of having no doctrinal statement is not a low level of discourse.

bapticus hereticus: The low level comment concerns the statement that CBF has nothing for which it stands (i.e., “The CBF has no hill.”). Its hill is cooperative action for manifesting the Great Commission.

Louis: … CBF [does] … not have a confessional basis for their relationship.

bapticus hereticus: Sure it does, but it is not in the form that is preferred by SBC. The organizing principles for CBF include: “ … passion for the Great Commission of Jesus Christ and a commitment to Baptist principles of faith and practice. Our mission is to serve Christians and churches as they discover and fulfill their God-given mission.”

The purpose is explicit, but that which is implicit is a local matter. Diversity (means) which leads to a particular end (see statement immediately above) is a hallmark of CBF, which apparently is problematic in SBC, as evidenced by your and others’ comments. There is no basis for cooperation if Jesus is not Lord or if the call to follow does not include the other and his or her development.

Louis: That is the fundamental distinction between the SBC and the CBF. The CBF does not have and does not seek to have a common confession. The rest of the differences are just details that flow from that difference." That is a correct statement.

bapticus hereticus: If you define confession as BFM, that would be correct, but confession is not defined as such in CBF. Rather for CBF confession is a lived reality of cooperative action in following Jesus as led by God’s Spirit.

Louis: People who like the CBF may be overly sensitive about this discussion, not because of any inaccuracy by me or anyone else, but because this situation reveals the weakness of CBF because it has no doctrinal statement.

bapticus hereticus: Again, not so, Louis. CBF prefers the embodiment of doctrine over formal statements of such. Orthopraxy is stressed over orthodoxy, but the latter is implicit in the former.

Louis: It may be perhaps that in this instance CBF's intentional avoidance of having any doctrinal confessional unity is a terrible weakness.

bapticus hereticus: It is a basis for creating a community for those that wish to cooperate on the basis of agreement and allowing space for dialogue in the areas where there is disagreement. To many that would be seen as a strength.

Louis: The CBF has no way of limiting the participation of Baptist organizations based on any theology they may have. I see that as a weakness. I susptect in moments like this even CBF supporters see that as a weakness, and are therefore super- sensitive to anyone pointing it out.

bapticus hereticus: Why would it wish to limit partnerships with baptists that share its goals and act with mutuality? In what way is CBF cooperating with others that would lead you to believe that its ventures are inconsistent with taking the Great Commission seriously?

Joe Blackmon said...

Why would it wish to limit partnerships with baptists that share its goals and act with mutuality? In what way is CBF cooperating with others that would lead you to believe that its ventures are inconsistent with taking the Great Commission seriously?


Thank you for the biggest belly laugh I've had in forever. THIS is the quintessential between real Christians and pretend christians (moderate/liberals). Real Christians cooperate with other real Christians in true missionary endevors and have unity in biblical truth. Therefore, God blesses those efforts because they are carried out in His name.

Moderate/Liberal christians (who are pretending to be real Christians but have not believed the biblical gospel) will cooperate with ANYONE regardless of what they believe because truth is not important to them. The "gospel" they preach is not the gospel of Christ but is rather a gospel that says "Hey, you don't have to repent of your sins. And Christ isn't the only way to heaven." Therefore, the only real unity these pretend christians have is the fact that they loathe biblical doctrine and seek to denegrate it at every turn.

Bart Barber said...

I'd like to steer the conversation toward one of the major points of the post. The BGCT position seems to be that only pastors and deacons define a congregation's "leadership" and that it is the makeup of the leadership, not the membership, that defines the nature of the church.

Isn't this contrary to the most basic Baptist conceptions of the church?

Joe Blackmon said...

Bart,

That is a great point. It would seem to be contrary to any understanding of priesthood of believers that Baptists have held to.

r. grannemann said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
r. grannemann said...

"The BGCT position seems to be that only pastors and deacons define a congregation's "leadership" and that it is the makeup of the leadership, not the membership, that defines the nature of the church."

I don't see how this follows at all.

Disfellowshiping a church is not a business any convention of churches wants to get involved in. I mean, how many years did Broadway have known homosexual members before it was disfellowshiped by the SBC (over three decades, maybe four).

Every megachurch church has members who struggle with homosexuality. Every megachurch probably has sexually active singles. Is a convention supposed to spy on church members to enforce "the law?" It's a church's responsibility to shepherd the flock, and it's not the convention's mission to remedy every failure.

Action is taken when a church's complicity cannot be doubted. That's why the "leadership" issue brought up.

Excellent article in The Baptist Standard:

http://www.baptiststandard.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11167&Itemid=53

Randel Everett and David Lowrie have represented the BGCT well, in my opinion.

Joe Blackmon said...

Yes, Randell Everitt and Davie Lowerie have demonstrated the BGCT to be a collection of leftward leaning chruches. And it's no surprise that was published in the Baptist Standard, an obviously left leaning "news" organization.

Anonymous said...

Bart:

Good point.

BH:

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Louis

Bart Barber said...

Dr. Grannemann,

Allow me to clarify.

1. Broadway BC in Fort Worth has also elected homosexual members into leadership. It just hasn't yet elected them to ORDAINED leadership. Homosexual members at Broadway BC have been elected to serve on congregational committees.

2. Both congregations, therefore, have elected homosexual members into leadership.

3. But the BGCT has dealt with the two congregations differently. The BGCT appears to have dealt with the two congregations differently because it does not regard the election of homosexual members to non-ordained leadership positions to constitute congregational approbation of homosexuality (although it apparently regards election to ordained leadership as such).

4. Thus, the differing treatment of the two congregations seems to indicate that the BGCT is regarding ordained leadership alone to constitute the leadership of the church.

r. grannemann said...

Bart,

The Executive Board has not taken action in the case of Broadway to this point. The Executive Board is also just one component of the BGCT.

I do believe an organization needs to take actions on certain hot button cases/issues if they wish to maintain their theological identity (and non-action establishes that identity also). But Broadway didn't send messengers to the 2009 BGCT. Maybe the Executive Board is hoping the issue will just go away -- and maybe it will.

But yes, how the case of Broadway is ultimately handled is another piece of straw which will tend to establish the BGCT's theological identity -- and great wisdom is required.

Bart Barber said...

The fact that the BGCT has not taken action is precisely the point. WIth regard to Royal Lane, they have taken action. With regard to Broadway, they have not.

Why the difference?

That's the heart of the discussion, right there.

And the very point of the post—a sentiment embedded into the title, even—is my concurrence with you that there is opportunity in the future for the BGCT to deal with Broadway yet.

r. grannemann said...

Royal Lane's policy affected the Executive Board more directly than Broadway's. A member of Royal Lane is a member of the Executive Board; I suspect that's not true of Broadway. Also, two members of Royal Lane are employees of the BGCT. So, in the case of Royal Lane the Executive Board may have felt more compelled to act.

If Broadway had sent messengers to the 2009 BGCT a motion almost certainly would have been made not to seat them. That motion probably would have passed. So Broadway did not send messengers. A threaten BGCT action therefore has already affected the Broadway's status to some extent.

Broadway is a very divided church. Maybe it's best to give them a little more time to sort it out.