NC Baptists approve anti-gay policy
by Matt | November 14th, 2006 |How many times have you seen that kind of headline?
The North Carolina Baptist Convention today, in Greensboro, approved an anti-gay measure that would take effect for all churches which want to remain affiliated with the group.
According to WFMY News 2, the new policy rejects churches which “knowingly act to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior.”
The new policy states that a church cannot accept into membership any openly gay person. Neither can the churches baptize openly gay people or accept them in any leadership roles. The policy also allows people to make complaints against churches which may be breaking the policy in any way.
Be sure to check out the WFMY News 2 article and especially the video. I’m not going to waste time writing down my views here on the blog… All I had to say was said in my interview with WFMY.
See past stories here and here.
By the way… and it really isn’t a big deal, I guess… but WFMY messed up my name. They forgot “Comer” 
27 Responses to “NC Baptists approve anti-gay policy”
Hmmm, a bunch of people who base their lives on a book of fairy tales don’t believe in fairies. If only they would ban idiots.
By abloggersayswhat on Nov 15, 2006
and the hipocrasy lives on. (I probably spelled that incorrectly, sorry.
My former church was one of those Baptist churches that is a member of the Southern Baptist Assoc. There’s plenty of sinning there.
The orchestra leader got in some sort of crookedry, and resigned. Then, one of my favorite pastors (they had 7), who was in charge of the Adult singles ministry - had to leave the church when it was discovered he was having a naughty affair with a church secretary or something like that.
Ewww, I still get disgusted by the visual that pops up in my head.
Also, I got disgusted when our Sunday school teacher was thrilled with the installation of GW BUsh in the whitehouse in 2000, when she sent out an email -
Praise the Lord, there’s a man of God in the White House.
And she went on about how these are good businessment that will be running our country…..
Well, folks may be wising up to the Southern Baptists too, as they get harsher and stricter each day.
Matt, just keep up the good work, I really appreciate what you do.
Not because I am gay, I am not. But for anyone who is.
I worry about kids today who have to struggle with prejudice against them for being gay, and what if my child were gay? (its always possible). Or my neighbor’s child?
I had a good friend when I was young, back when it was even worse than it is today for gay people, and he was struggling so hard to deal with this. He was suicidal and depressed often.
Finally he moved away from his home town, where he could be himself, in a city. Things got better for him, and I am so glad, because he was (and probably is) a fine person, a good person.
You probably help alot of kids in our state, so thanks.
And adults too.
After all, this is supposed to be the United States, not the DisUnited States of America.
By F Hatter on Nov 15, 2006
“We have been forced to it by the pro-homosexual movement,” said the Rev. K. Allan Blume of Boone, the vice president of the convention’s board of directors. “It’s been aggressive and forceful. They’ve been trying to shove this issue on others … saying homosexuality should be accepted as it is.”
That’s what you want, isn’t it Matt? For homosexuality to be embraced by the church?
By chip atkinson on Nov 15, 2006
For God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son, so that whoever shall believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Notice, Scripture does not say “So that whoever shall believeth in Him, excluding the homosexuals…”
I believe that the NC Baptist State Convention has chosen a path of exclusion. Christ would have never chosen that path.
Furthermore, this is no different than when the Baptists, as a group, upheld and supported slavery, the subjugation of women and opposition to Women’s Suffrage, inter-racial marriage and other social ills and wrongs we now rightly see as ill and wrong. The Baptists had to apologize for upholding and defending slavery because it was “ordained in the Bible” and they will, one day, apologize for their most recent exclusionary move as well.
By Matt on Nov 15, 2006
Thank goodness the Southern Baptists finally did soemthing right.
Matt, what Allan Blume said is true, and your response to Chip is childishly naive, not in the good sense of childlike faith, but in the bad sense of immature and poor Bible work. As if that were the only verse in the Bible. Shall we go to the Apostle John’s other writing? Or have the modern bible verse and bible book and bible author selection committees decided that only the good feely inclusive verses like that one good have possibly been spoken by Jesus?
By Joel Gillespie on Nov 15, 2006
Joel… I did not mean for my comment to be an in-depth review and/or study of Scripture.
I’ve admitted plenty of times that I’m not a Biblical scholar… so I don’t try to be.
I know that I believe God created me just as I am, that He loves me just as I am, that the Bible and God has been used by fallible humans to condemn and torture all types of people - including women, jews, blacks and gays - throughout the centuries and that my God is a god of love, radical inclusion, acceptance and grace. Also know that Christ stood for justice, peace, inclusion, acceptance, humility, wall- and barrier-breaking and equality.
I believe that the Gospels and that Christ’s own words and teachings are being ignored by many Christians as they seek to turn God into a punitive hater.
By Matt on Nov 15, 2006
NC Baptist Convention Oustes Gays
In an effort led entirely by hatred and political efforts, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina voted to excommunicate churches that allow openly gay & lesbian members to be a part of their church’s body. The article is vague enough to allow the Convention to remove any church that knowingly allows a gay or lesbian person to attend services, many church experts have said. While supporters of the article say that the intention is to only remove churches who “bless” gay & lesbian congregants. […]
By The Queer Standard on Nov 15, 2006
while there are many verses about homosexuality in the bible, I think the Baptist convention has forgotten one of the most famous of all, “let he without sin cast the first stone.”
What’s next, those of us who have engaged in pre-marital sex or who enjoy a glass of red occasionally will not be let in either. It infuriates me!
By Natasha Sell on Nov 15, 2006
OK Matt, I grant you not to have to say everything every time you say anything. Although you do not require that of me, others do, and it is a royal pain in the neck. Sorry for my tone. Ans sorry we find ourselves on opposite sides of this. We need to find a side issue we can fight together soemtimes.
By Joel Gillespie on Nov 15, 2006
Several folks, on this topic, have voiced their opinions that the Bible has “several things” to say about homosexuality. I want to voice an opposition to this fact. In fact, the Bible has NOTHING to say about homosexuality in regards to sexual orientation. In fact, the word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until many years after Christ was crucified.
I have a resource entitled “God’s Good News to Gays” that was written by Rev. David Thomas, a graduate of Oral Robert’s University with emphasis in Biblical history and theology. Rev. Thomas’ writing illustrates for us, the facts behind many of these verses that “alledge” to condemn homosexuality. This resource is available for FREE DOWNLOAD by visiting: http://www.gayhickory.com/gnfg.pdf
As for agreeing, I must say that I believe Natasha has hit the “nail on the head” by basically saying “now homosexuals.. next liars, fornicators, covetors…” The underlying fact here, is that the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, has joined with many of it’s counterparts around the country to write church-sanctioned discrimination. In essence, the church has decided who they allow in their church… and from the surface one could conclude that only “non-sinning Baptists” are allowed.
It’s a travesty. It’s a sad day. It’s certainly the opposite of two greatest commandments: “Love God with everything you have and love those around you with the same love.”
By Brandon Greeson on Nov 15, 2006
The Bible has nothing to say about inner sexual orientation but it has a lot to say about marriage. It is irrelevant when the word “homosexual” was coined. The idea of it was certainly around in Jesus’ day and before. There is a big difference between loud proud practicing homosexuals, gays, people who go for the same gender, who demand to be accepted in that lifestyle and practice on the one hand, and people who have an orientation or tendency and who wish to remain chaste and obe3dient to God’s will for sexuality and marriage on the other. The Baptist church is addressing (or should be) the former, those who actively and unrepentantly practice same gender sex. If there were people who were known to practice lying without repentance or remorse, or who were known to practice stealing without repentance or remorse, or who were committing adultery or fornication without repentance or remorse, or who were spreading slander and schism without repentance or remorse, and who demanded to be accepted as practicing liars, theives, adulterers, fornicators, and slanders, etc., then the same would hold true for them, at least in oiur church. All such habitual actions would undermine a creible profession of faith. We are all sinners. We all fall short. We all mess up. But we are called to repent. All through life. Daily. Weekly. Jesus said “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus also said a lot of things about marriage. So did Paul. Oh I forgot. Paul is out. But then, all we think we know about Jesus meek and mild should be out for the same reason. God’s purpose in salvation is that we be remade into the image of Jesus, not just that we we be patted on the back for our repeated sin and rebellion. We are to put off the old man and put on the new. The Bible is clear that sex and marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman. Jesus himself said so. Oh, and about throwing the first stone, remember, Jesus said to the woman, “go, and sin no more.”
By Joel Gillespie on Nov 15, 2006
you know, my boyfriend made the same argument about “go, and sin no more”, but does that justify a church turning away people who want to worship their lord and savior? no, it does not. I see it this way, for about 5 years I was sexually active, but continued going to church. I did not have a good relationship with God, and I definitely was just going through the motions. But now, I have vowed to have no more sex until marriage. Do you know how I came to that vow? By continuing to go to church, listening to sermons, and finally, I got the message that my life was wrong. It is the church’s responsibility to let in all people, so that we can be refreshed, and come to know God’s will in our life. How are people supposed to know that they are supposed to “go, and sin no more” if they are not welcomed in a place of worship?
By Natasha Sell on Nov 16, 2006
“If there were people who were known to practice lying without repentance or remorse, or who were known to practice stealing without repentance or remorse, or who were committing adultery or fornication without repentance or remorse, or who were spreading slander and schism without repentance or remorse, and who demanded to be accepted as practicing liars, theives, adulterers, fornicators, and slanders, etc., then the same would hold true for them, at least in oiur church.” — Joel
Joel, does the same hold true for those who charge interest on loans without remorse? Those who eat shellfish without remorse? Those who wear poly-cotton blends without remorse? Just wondering.
By Roch101 on Nov 16, 2006
Roch,
I deem it a hopeless cause for you to ever understand the difference between the old and new covenents, and old covenant law and new covenant commandments, as these distinctions are given by Jesus and the Apostles. If you had any idea how ignorant these kinds of questions were you would not even ask them. Why don’t you go spend a few days with a bible dictionary or somenthing just so you can speak half way intelligently about this stuff.
Natasha,
I am sensitive to what you are saying. It is my view that worship and preaching are themselves transformative in nature and nobody is without need to change and grow. I am glad to hear of your story. Anyone can come and worship with us for as long as they want. Membership is a different matter if that is raised. If you were already a member, and for whatever reason, perhaps through your own discussion, it became clear that you were sexually active, we would work with and talk with you quietly behind the scenes and seek to encourage and exhort you from the Scriptures to remain chaste until marriage. The manner in which you responded and approached that would make a big difference as to what followed, that is, how we went from there. if you were not a member, and you came in with your boyfriend, or weekly with your various boyfriends, say, and demanded up front to be accepted as you were, and demanded to be received as a member as a non married sexually active person, and scoffed and ridiculed all suggestions that there may be something not right about it, then your profession of faith would not be deemed credible. If you came in and worshipped quietly for years and gradually got to know people, even if it became known about your sexual habits, there would be much grace and patience and tenderness as you and God worked things out. These same various scenarios would apply to gay people and gay couples.
By Joel Gillespie on Nov 16, 2006
“I deem it a hopeless cause for you to ever understand the difference between the old and new covenents, and old covenant law and new covenant commandments, as these distinctions are given by Jesus and the Apostles. If you had any idea how ignorant these kinds of questions were you would not even ask them. Why don’t you go spend a few days with a bible dictionary or somenthing just so you can speak half way intelligently about this stuff.”
That’s convenient. Chalk it up to my “ignorance.” Above, you chastised Matt for selective readings of the Bible, now defend yours. Don’t you get tired of getting mired in these intellectually untenable positions; of the mental contortions you must go through to maintain that the Bible supports the prejudices you have but doesn’t apply where not convenient? Will you bend your “rationale” yet again when it suits you — when the Old Testament Ten Commandments need to be justified, perhaps?
By Roch101 on Nov 16, 2006
“then your profession of faith would not be deemed credible.”
Because, afterall, somebody has to judge.
By Roch101 on Nov 16, 2006
I have just one thing to say… and this comes from my personal interpretation of the Gospels and what I have prayed about and thought about for years….
35 - Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36 - Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 - Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 - This is the first and great commandment.
39 - And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 - On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
That passage, Matthew 35-40, captures for me what I consider the most basic (and at the same time, most complex) tenents of my relationship with God.
I am called to proclaim belief in Christ, as my Saviour, and then to do two things… Love God and Love my neighbor. Christ then states, “On these two commandments hang ALL THE LAW AND PROPHETS.”
It is absolutely clear to me that EVERYTHING, EVERY LAW and EVERY VERSE of the Bible must be first filtered through Christ’s greatest two commandments.
Slavery (which is ordained in other parts of the Bible): Gone, after being filtered through Love.
Subjugation of Women: Gone, after being filtered through Love.
Condemnation of the Jews: Gone, after being filtered through Love (even though the some of the Gospels do condemn them).
Maltreatment of the possessed, oops I mean mentally ill: Gone, after being filtered through Love.
“Separation of the Races” aka Segregation, ordained by the Story of Babel: Gone, after being filtered through Love.
I could go on and on and on and on, going back through centuries of wrongs done by the church (and The Church). There is not one time that the church (and The Church) has abused the Bible and condemned others that they haven’t had to later apologize for (slavery, women (almost there, not quite), jews, disabled and mentally ill, Galileo!).
The day will come when the church (and The Church) will also apologize for misinterpreting God’s Love for All and using God’s Name for evil against LGBT people.
By Matt on Nov 16, 2006
Matt,
I believe you did a very good job at explaining how many, I would say the majority, of Christians feel about our faith & relationship with Christ. I too concur with your observations.
Sadly, many in the right (referring to the religious-right), want to continue to debate the issue by raising other points. It is obvious that Joel Gillespie has not taken the time to read the resource I made available above. In this resource, Rev. Thomas explains many of the scriptures used to condemn gay & lesbian people. Ironically, Rev. Thomas is not the only theologian who believes this way.
Many theologians, including a wide-range of those in the very conservative community, agree with Rev. Thomas on a number of his points. The whole argument comes down to understanding society at the time the passages were written, the proper translation of languages and applying them through the art of interpetation to what it applies to today.
Joel, my friend, you are wrong to assume that date the word homosexual was coined does not apply to this argument, when in fact it does. The fact that the word homsexual (or anything close to it) did not exist, makes it difficult to translate the greek (arsenktoi) into english. The best one could do was use the word infeminate (meaning woman-like). And though, stereotypically one could instantly assume that to mean gay, we know that is far from the case. I’m no more like a woman than the standard straight man, and I know many more gay men that are more “butch” than I am.
Furthermore, no scripture references lesbians. So, were the writers of scripture “caught up” on the fantasies of seeing two lesbians “go at it” or do you believe it just wasn’t an issue?
The fact is, we could waste unending hours of time debating this issue. Until you allow yourself to “reason” with all levels of understanding what Scripture means by “reason together” then we’ll never get anywhere.
Believe me, Joel, when I tell you that gay & lesbian people don’t wake up and say “I’m going to tell my Church I’m gay so I can start a fiasco.” In fact, many of us go through reparative therapy (see “Exodus Internation” and “Truth Wins Out”), hide our sexuality and often times many commit suicide from the effects of dealing with the inner secret of who God created us to be.
Joel, furthermore, my husband Nathan and myself are no more a threat to Christianity and marriage than that of any other couple. We live modest lives, centered around our Church family and serving God. Nathan and I give financially and of ourselves to the poor, less fortunate, homeless, those in prision and to missionaries - as we are commanded by our Lord. We believe in the tenants of our faith and adhere those.
The only thing we have different from many of our heterosexual counterparts is that we tend to be more trusting of God and rely more on our faith because of our trails and experiences. There have been times, in our coming out and dealing with our sexuality, that the only thing (and I mean only thing) that we had to hold on to was our faith in God. God never let me down then and he won’t start now with some idol & discriminative act on behalf of some “high & mighty” church leaders.
I know, without a shadow of a doubt, where my eternal destiny lies. Not in the laws of the United States, not in the ordinances of the Baptist Church and by far not in the bigoted thoughts of those seeking to stone me because of how God created me.
Consider my post to be what you want, but from a poor southern boy who grew up knowing God - sticking with God and now growing with God.. know that I speak from my heart and from my experiences. The Holy Spirit guides me and I’m glad to be a Child of the Most High God!
Peace to you… hopefully you’ll accept my invitation to read Good News for Gays - http://www.gayhickory.com/gnfg.pdf
By Brandon Greeson on Nov 16, 2006
Just for the record… I do not consider Joel to be a part of the “Religious Right” and I’ll never attack him as such.
Unlike members of the “Religious Right” Joel does not, I believe, seek to openly and actively attack LGBT people the way that the “Religious Right” does. Joel is simply stating his personal beliefs as a Christian.
By Matt on Nov 16, 2006
Roch,
If you do not know the difference from a New Testament perspective between the ongoign validity of the Old Covenant food laws and the the many New Testament commandments or perhaps even the moral law as presented in the Ten Commandments, then you really do not know enough to have an opinion. This is Bible 101 or maybe pre 101 and you need to get to that point. Your invectives mean nothing when accompanied by such ignorance.
And yes, somebody does have to make a judgment about things in the church. Or shall we allow into membership those who want to join but believe in the goddess Diana? Should we allow in those who don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus? Should we allow into membership child pornographers? Would you? Give me a break. Of course somebody has to make a judgment about whether a profession of faith is credible. We use a pretty minimal standard - the mustard seed - but if there is a fist raised against Jesus’ standards of discipleship then that is a red flag.
Matt you and I agree about the greatest commandments, to which I would add the “new” commandment in John 13. I see however the rest of the commandments as filling in the meaning of the greatest commandments, telling us what love of God and love of neighbor and one another look like. I would argue that sexual relations outside of a man/woman marriage is inconsistent with love of neighbor. Well, you know that already, but I say that to explain where I go with the great commandments. But, yes, in the end, everything must be sorted through the filter of love. As it says in Colossians 3, “and above all these things put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” You would allow for gay sexual expression as a result of the love filter; I would do the opposite as a result of the love filter. I belive that same gender sexual desire and expression is a result of the fall of man and the brokenness of the world. But I understand that it is real, and it vexes me terribly that we find we’re in the mess we’re in having this conversation. I wish it were not the case. And thank you Matt for your kind words. I do not have it in for LGBT people. How could I love my neighbor and have it in for my neighbor? I believe that I would as easily like or love as my neighbor a gay person as well as a straight person (Actually I have had many actual gay neighbors along the way). I hate where speaking out on this matter leaves me, and the obvious stereotypes it opens people up to level against me. I feel bad if I speak up and bad if I don’t.
Brandon, I don’t know who you’re talking about as to high and mighty church leaders. Not ours. Our church is made up of people from all sort of walks of life many facing almost unspeakable hurdles and challenges, people who give to the needy and care for the poor and help one another and who are indwelt by the Spirit yet who also experience many sorrows in this vale of tears through which we walk. Our elders and leaders and kind and big hearted and compassionate. They would not break a bruised reed nor quench a smoldering wick. There is a difference in how one writes about issues and how one works with real people.
I may check out the essay you have referenced. I have read many many things, been around the block many times, but who knows, it is possible he is saying something new under the son. I doubt it, but it is possible. The matter of marriage is pretty much settled in Genesis one and two however (so also Jesus thought), but I’ll read the essay.
By Joel Gillespie on Nov 16, 2006
I find it interesting that the NC State Baptist Convention seeks to create as its sole binding commonality among member churches a policy of exclusion & rejection of one group of human beings. Judgment of others is clearly their most deeply-held core “value” as a faith organization. They have chosen to define themselves in this way, it was not forced upon them by anyone. Not unlike the KKK and Aryan Nation defining themselves by who they exclude and target.
While I’m not at all surprised by this policy, I think perhaps they should’ve gone even further — maybe, say, advocating the death penalty for anyone who is or accepts or associates with a gay person…wouldn’t that be truly inerrantly biblical? I’ve always been a believer in “let the bigots show themselves”…and I hope that the 120 Alliance of Baptists churches within the SBCNC will consider voluntarily leaving its SBCNC corporate affiliation in favor of its principles.
Indeed, I would encourage the Alliance churches each to adopt for itself a policy that forces it to reject any affiliation with any other church bodies that “knowingly act to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless” exclusion of any of God’s children from the body of Christ in any way.
By Patti in Dallas on Nov 16, 2006
Patti,
I am neither a Southern Baptist nor a Baptist, but if you think that this issue is what defines the Baptists you are wrong. This is hardly their sole and binding commonality. What defines them is their shared and common belief in the God who is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, their common belief in the gospel of Christ, and of course, their common Baptistis distinctives. Do you think a Baptist Church that started baptizing babies would be kept in the affiliation? This gay marriage issue is a side issue forced upon them by advocates who have been pressing and pressing them for years. Are there any of God’s creatures that you would not allow into the membership of a Christian Church? What about a Muslim? What about a practicing murderer? What about a practicing child beater? They are all God’s creatures, which is what I assume you mean by God’s children. I have read few things as exclusive and filed with vitriole and hate as your comments. And give me a break. The Klan? The Baptist Church is not unlike the Klan and the Aryan nation? calling the Baptists bigots? This is the rhetoric of hate and bigotry itself.
By Joel Gillespie on Nov 16, 2006
Joel,
Well of course their affirmative beliefs in the basic tenets of the Baptist faith bring them into affiliation with each other…I’m talking about of all the things that defines that line of being “in” or “out” of the affiliation is one sole binding common agreement in writing applicable to all member churches: excluding a specific group of people. Indeed, this whole story might’ve been better for everyone involved if the State Baptist Convention of North Carolina (the subject here, not ALL Baptists, just this one organization) had included in their litany of “bad” members all of those you mentioned and more. But they didn’t. They singled out one very specific group of individuals who, if a church chooses to accept (&/or affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless), can lead to investigation and expulsion from the organization. That to me pretty much “defines” them as a group, as an organization…yes, no different than the KKK laying out a written protocol for formal investigation and expulsion of any member who affirms, approves, endorses, promotes, supports, or blesses a black person or a Jewish person. Any other “transgression” is strictly left up to the local church…but THIS can get you kicked out of the statewide organization. Otherwise, the statewide org never will look inside your local church for any reason at any time on any subject. THAT’S defining.
It is interesting to me that a local church within the SBCNC has, until now, had autonomy over what — & who — happens within its congregation. I call your attention to the SBCNC’s own words on its website, and the extremely specific statements about local church autonomy:
“The object of this Convention shall be to promote missions, evangelism, education, social services, the distribution of the Bible and sound religious literature, and to co-operate with the work of the Southern Baptist Convention (Article II). While independent and sovereign in its own sphere, the Convention does not claim and will never attempt to exercise any authority over any other Baptist body, whether church, auxiliary organization, association, or Convention (Article III).
“Baptists are also held together by certain general doctrines:
(1) acceptance of the Bible as a source of faith and guide for church procedure as well as a standard for personal life;
(2) necessity for a personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, followed by baptism by immersion as a symbol of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection;
(3) strong belief in the priesthood of all believers and the right of every individual to approach God for himself and to interpret Scripture for himself;
(4) strong belief in the work of the Holy Spirit as he directs believer into a fuller understanding of the Bible and God’s will;
(5) strong belief in the autonomy of the local church as a group of voluntarily associated believers who come together regularly for worship, Christian nurture , a religious education, mission support; and
(6) a similar belief in autonomy for all areas of Baptist life beyond the local church – i.e., associations, state and national conventions, and international organizations (e.g., Baptist World Alliance).
“Most Baptist churches, as they were organized, adopted some statement of faith – such as the Philadelphia Confession of Faith or the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. The important point is that it is the local church, not the district association or state or national convention, which adopts the statement of faith. True to Baptist heritage and New Testament belief, the local church is where matters of doctrine and church practice are to be discussed, debated, and adopted. Repeatedly, the Southern Baptist and Baptist State Conventions have refused to become forums for theological debate.”
By Patti in Dallas on Nov 16, 2006
Patti,
Well as one in a Presbyterian affiliation I am not going to argue the point of the oddities of an independent church having an affiliation with rules. Just makes it kind of non independent.
But Patti, again, if other pressure groups with agendas not in keepig with Baptist teaching had been pushing and pushing the church for acceptance and inclusion without any intention to consider repentance or change then the Baptists would have drawn up definitions of what defines people or groups of poeple as being in or out so as to exclude them. Please see the common sense of this. Can you not see that if incestuous marriage lobbies were pushing them for full “rights” of membership or affiliation, even if they would rather not haveto devote time to the subject, they eventually would have to. They were driven to this, not out of bigotry or hatred, but out of the pressure against them, and their understanding of the Scriptures in response. I am not a huge fan of the Southern Baptist Convention, not because it is Baptist, but because it has been too politicall. Nevertheless, I think the gay lobby left them no choice. Again, can you not imagine subgroups of people demanding equal right and membership privilege that would be engaged in things contrary to Baptist teasching that you would just have to say “no” to, and finally just put your foot down? Even if you don’t agree with their decision you have to know that these people did not do this in a spsirit of “let’s have a party and bash gays.” I suppose there were many tears. They care about human beings, gay human beings included. This pains them, the majority of them, the ocassional nut case excluded.
Nevertheless, as a Baptist church polity matter, I think you have a point and it is well taken.
if you want a more human face to me and our church, go to
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelgillespie/. That may help. Or go to our web site - http://joelgillespie.blogspot.com/.
And just so you’ll know, I hate it that I find that I seem to be called to defend the historic orthodox Christian faith in this medium. Well, I don;t hate it, b4ecause I think I am called to it much liek Iasiah ewas called in Iasaiah 6, with the same result pretty much. So I certainly do not want to keep talkign about this. Matt makign it front page headline on the aggregator keeps it relentlessly on the front burner. I’d love to change the subjest.
Joel
Joel
By Joel Gillespie on Nov 16, 2006
I want a t-shirt that says “Rejected by the Baptist Convention”.
I would wear it with pride.
Come to think of it, that would make a nice bumper sticker.
They are a private club for members only and thus they have the right to make their own membership rules. This does not mean however that I don’t have the right to mock them openly in public.
At least I won’t have to worry about seeing them in heaven.
By Woody Cavenaugh on Nov 21, 2006
“The Baptist Church is not unlike the Klan?”
Well, actually, if not for a sprinkling of Methodists and Presbyterians, the Klan and the Baptist church were pretty much inseparable from the get-go.
Fact: The Klan openly collected funds in Baptist church services.
Fact: Baptist ministers praised the Klan from the pulpit.
Fact: At its peak of violence, the Klan claimed 75% of delegates of the Southern Baptist Convention as members.
Fact: multiple murderer, KKK ringleader and Baptist minister Edgar Ray Killen and many others saw no conflict between the KKK and the teachings of the Baptist church.
Fact: The vast majority of Baptist churches in the South still practice segregation.
Fact: In 2006 a Baptist church tried to exhume the body of a baby buried in its cemetery when the minister learned it was of mixed race.
Fact: With the exception of racial minorities, Baptist hate literature targets virtually everyone hated by the KKK - Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, JWs, Gays, liberals
Fact: In 1934 US Baptist leaders attending a conference in Germany praised Hitler and the Nazis.
By Trevor Wood on Feb 19, 2007
Trevor… “not unlike” The person who said that was making the same point as you. Thanks for the facts though.
If they had wanted to say that the Baptist Convention and the KKK weren’t similar they would have said “The Baptist Church is not like the Klan” or “The Baptist Church is unlike the Klan.”
Saying “not unlike” in that sentence is the same as saying “The Baptist Church is like the Klan.”
By Matt on Feb 19, 2007