Can't Ride the Fence

A friend forwarded me a link to an article about Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth. Broadway was one of my sister churches. I'm good friends with staffers and worked with the church a number of times on camps, retreats, ski trips, etc.

It seems that a flap has developed over gay couples wanting to be pictured as a couple in the church directory. The church is trying to do what so many "moderate" baptist churches do and ride the fence. They want to welcome gay people but not actually take a stand on the issue. Here are pastor Bret Younger's statements on the matter as quoted in the Baptist Press article:

"Broadway has for years had an amazing policy on including gay people. It's not a policy that a committee came up with, or the staff or the deacons. It's an unwritten policy that came out of the shared life of this congregation, a policy I believe was inspired by the Spirit," he said. "This church has for a long time included both gay people who are committed to Christ and members who aren't affirming and who have serious questions, but who are willing to share the church. This has allowed us to be a congregation where the conversation can take place about being gay and being Christians."

Now, I know Bret and know that he's much better on gay issues than most baptist ministers. And I respect this position of his, but it is an impossible position.

First off, it might have worked in say 1995 and been a comparatively progressive position. But it doesn't cut in in the current environment. My view was that 2004 was the line in the sand moment. You were either with us or against us, no more middle ground. I think that this is the same that you can judge historical figures for their positions on African-American civil rights. By a certain point, a more moderating position might be okay, but by another point (say 1963) you are either a supporter of equality or a bigot.

Second, as Dr. King said about the civil rights movement, our worst enemies are not those who have what I call "the courage of their bigotry," but are the moderates. Bigots are clear, can be argued against, and their positions are open. Moderates generally assume that time will take care of the issue. But, as King said, time doesn't do anything. People do. You have to be taking productive steps to deal with these potential issues. Some churches avoid even having opportunities for education because they want to avoid the issue, but avoiding education means that sooner or later it is going to blow up, usually in some silly episode like this.

Third, welcoming without affirming doesn't work. Many churches think it does, but as a gay man I can say that it does not. Many gay people go to welcoming but non-affirming choices for lots of reasons, but from first hand experience and through watching many people come through my congregation, there is nothing as empowering and healing as the experience of full sacramental equality. If you don't think LGBT people can serve in leadership, be ordained, get married, or otherwise participate fully in the life of your congregation, then you simply aren't welcoming.

Fourth, this moderate baptist idea that you can become a welcoming congregation without going through the process is a fantasy. Sooner or later you have to have educational opportunities and open discussions. Just look at University or Highland Park in Austin. Moderate baptist keep thinking that they are going to be able to hide their heads in the sand on this issue, but it simply doesn't work, as this episode at Broadway reveals. I will credit Fran Patterson with doing some education of her youth parents and workers on this issue in previous years.

Fifth, what I learned when I came to CoH from my life as a moderate baptist is that ultimately being "moderate" doesnt' work. In moderate churches one is constantly looking over one's shoulder wondering where the next attack will come from. Will you say something too liberal? Will you not be liberal enough to please some folk in your congregation? Is there any agreement on vision and mission? My personal sense, based on my experience, is that being moderate means refusing to take a position, refusing to speak with evangelical courage about war and peace, about equality, about social justice, because if you do, then you might offend someone.

Finally, I really feel for the gay couples at Broadway who are probably shocked to discover how unwelcoming the place they call home actually is. Many of us have been through that experience before.

Comments

[nenana]

hadn't heard about this. i do know that younger is a lot more 'moderate' than many others at broadway. what i did hear about is the accountiblity partners that registered sex offenders are susposed to have to be active in the church, which, as with gay issues, causes a variety of conflicting ideas in my brain.

[Joe]

Scott,

I just finished reading an article on the Broadway discussion. We've been discussing it off and on in our "Black Herd" lounge. I get the point of riding the fence and I do feel like us moderates (especially the CBF) need to make a stand on one side or another.

I can see the struggle though because people want to affirm but how do they do that believing homosexuality is a sin. I do not believe gays or lesbians are sinning at all; but there are those who are trying but can't get past that sin language. So, how do we can beyond that struggle?

You are right when you say you can't say that you welcome gay people if you don't think they can have the same freedoms straight people have. It's like saying we like black people but they can't vote. However, I feel like there is a fine line between seperation and state that the church is trying to not cross because of the huge religious abuse being done by our government.

Now, my opinion is that when it comes to issues like this, you can't seperate the church and state in that the church should not speak out. I think the church has a duty in speaking out agianst injustices. But I am rambling, sorry.

Also, what event in 2004 are you referring to?

[Scott]

the use of gay people as whipping boys by the GOP in order to sustain their political power, i.e., all the state constitutional amendments against marriage equality.

[chucknfw]

Preface to my comment: I am very close to Broadway and have a loving concern for the community there. I have family members there who are hurting deeply over this issue.

The number one issue that I see here is.

Does Broadway view the Bible as divinely inspired?

If it is the view of the church that the bible is trustworthy then whether or not homosexuality is a sin or not is not a disputable matter.

If Broadway views scripture in a more progressive and worldly way then their shouldn't be an issue of inclusion of all in all facets of the church. I don't subscribe to this viewpoint because I trust the power of God to protect the integrity of Scripture and the more I study it the more I see how truth is woven through each book of the Bible.

There are "Pharisees" in the church who want to "stone" homosexuals. Others of the same mindset want the issue to go away and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Hypocrisy is damaging the church because it is picking and choosing which relational sins to deal with. The church has been horrible in dealing with adultery, divorce, and fornication. As a result, we have more dysfunctional families than healthy families.

Those that are lead by the authority of Scripture and pursue the the fruit of the Spririt struggle to lead others away from life challenges that go against will of God as presented in the Bible. Only through prayer, humility and wisdom expressed through the love of Christ is this accomplished.

I realize I am a guest here. Thank you for considering my thoughts. This is a tough issue because it involves deep emotions and desires coupled with opposing viewpoints.

In Christ,
Chuck

[chucknfw]

Preface to my comment: I am very close to Broadway and have a loving concern for the community there. I have family members there who are hurting deeply over this issue.

The number one issue that I see here is.

Does Broadway view the Bible as divinely inspired?

If it is the view of the church that the bible is trustworthy then whether or not homosexuality is a sin or not is not a disputable matter.

If Broadway views scripture in a more progressive and worldly way then their shouldn't be an issue of inclusion of all in all facets of the church. I don't subscribe to this viewpoint because I trust the power of God to protect the integrity of Scripture and the more I study it the more I see how truth is woven through each book of the Bible.

There are "Pharisees" in the church who want to "stone" homosexuals. Others of the same mindset want the issue to go away and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Hypocrisy is damaging the church because it is picking and choosing which relational sins to deal with. The church has been horrible in dealing with adultery, divorce, and fornication. As a result, we have more dysfunctional families than healthy families.

Those that are lead by the authority of Scripture and pursue the the fruit of the Spririt struggle to lead others away from life challenges that go against will of God as presented in the Bible. Only through prayer, humility and wisdom expressed through the love of Christ is this accomplished.

I realize I am a guest here. Thank you for considering my thoughts. This is a tough issue because it involves deep emotions and desires coupled with opposing viewpoints.

In Christ,
Chuck

[Scott]

Chuck,

Thank you for your comments. I don't think inspiration is the issue, but what hermeneutic one uses. Broadway had already clearly staked a position of interpreting scripture from a historical-critical method that takes into account changing cultural contexts. What is really the majority position in biblical scholarship.

Why do you think homosexuality is a sin?

Scott

[chucknfw]

From the old testament to the new, there is a clear demonstration that God views the sin rather unfavorably.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

"For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another."

Purity is a theme that carries through scripture. The only sexual relationship that is blessed is the marriage relationship. The consequences of our lack of purity in the church are far reaching. Abortion, adultery, fornication, and divorce are destroying life and families all around us. The church has failed to do much more than damage control and as a result the church looks little different than society. If the church implicitly accepts these sins then how can it condemn homosexuality? That is where we are. The only problem is that two wrongs don't make a right.

[Scott]

1) There is lots of good, serious scholarship on those passages that reads them as more complex and ambiguous than you do.

2) Even if these statements are to be interpreted as you interpret them, they are minor, obscure references and pale in comparison to injunctions related to poverty and economic justice.

3) Even if these statements are to be interpreted as you interpret them, that does not mean they are binding. The bible's support of slavery, genocide, and patriarchy means that it must be read and interpreted carefully and with skill.

4) Provide me one biblical example of a monogamous heterosexual marriage that is a model relationship for people in the 21st century.

5) Purity is a prominent theme in the Purity Codes, but this strain of Hebrew thinking comes in for a great deal of criticism by the prophets and Jesus.

[chucknfw]

Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

There are plenty of disputable matters in the Bible that give us pause when taking a dogmatic stance. We won't ever grasp predestination and free will on this side of heaven.

The issue of sexual sin is not one of those issues. I listed a couple of verses to quickly illustrate a point. I do believe the church ought no to single out certain sins and place too high of importance over other sins. The problem with the sin of homosexuality, however, is that it is a sin that church goers refuse to recognize as sin.

My heart is to welcome all and to include everyone, but Jesus is quite clear when He says the only way to God is through Him. I am not saying all homosexuals are going to hell, but merely am stating that the way to the Lord is a narrow one.

There isn't a person in the bible that God used who didn't sin. The only perfect example is Jesus, so there isn't a perfect marriage relationship in the bible because Jesus never married.

Understanding Scripture is best realized through prayer and the Holy Spirit. I don't think it is wise to accept anyones views without testing those views according to Scripture. Human wisdom is foolish to God. Those in Christ have access to divine wisdom.

[Scott]

I don't think you responded to my questions.

[Chucknfw]

1. The scholarship response I see as a way around a rather straightforward look at what scripture says. People from Adam forward have looked for ways to justify their own sin. I don't see any point in listing authors to see who has more names on their side.

2. Minor and obscure..... His statements regarding something being and abomination and detestable. How is that minor and or obscure? Does God have to say something more than once for you to believe it? What does poverty and economic justice have to do with sexual sin?

3. Slavery - The bible supports submission to authority even when that authority is unjust.
Genocide - God directs the rise and fall of nations. God pronounced his judgement on certain peoples at certain times as when he flooded the earth. He promised not to destroy by worldwide flood, but he will come back and judging and pemanantly dealing with
sinners outside of faith in Jesus.
Patriarchy - God designed form of a family.

4. God sets out his perfect design for marriage throughout scripture. The problem is that we as sinful man mess it up. There isn't a perfect example of man in the Bible outside of Jesus.

5. Jesus was extraordinarily clear when he spoke through Paul regarding purity.

[Scott]

I think you are trying to make the bible something it is not and in the process are denigrating it.

[Chucknfw]

I respected your call to answer your numbered questions. If you can show where I have engaged you in a way that is disrespectful, I would like to know.
Be careful to first look in the mirror before you accuse someone else of spitting in the face of the Almighty.

From 2 Timothy
"...the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

[Scott]

What I mean is that you seem to be idolizing the Bible and trying to make it some document of perfection that is binding ethically universally and absolutely. This is setting up an idol in the place of Christ, in my opinion. Scripture never suggests that it is what you are interpreting it to be and that particular theological view of scripture is rather recent in development.

[chucknfw]

How do you deal with a document which claims to be fully inspired by God? "All Scripture is God-breathed." If you reject the Bible as the inspired word of God, then there is no reason for debate over what God views as pure and what is sin.

The Bible is the revelation of God through man. The character of God is revealed by these writings. If it is as it claims to be "God breathed," then every word is from God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning."

So.... how can I idolize something that is in essence God? That statement doesn't make any sense to me.

[Scott]

To be inspired by God, to be the Word of God, and to be "in essence God" are very different things.

[greg]

Chuck,

Just weighing in on the bibliolatry bit here. You quote John 1 as if Word means Bible. I hope that's not what you're getting at. To say that the Bible is in essence God is to say that God and a book with words on pages share the same essence. If that's an ontological statement, I'm afraid even fundamentalist Christians of every stripe would disagree with you.

[chucknfw]

greg,
I see you your point. What I am trying to find out if Scott gives any credibility to the Bible as the source for revealing God to man. Is scripture "God breathed?"

[greg]

Chuck,

What exactly does "God-breathed" mean? It's a metaphor. We imbue it with meaning based upon our convictions. For inerrantists, it comes to mean inerrant/infallible. For people in the vein of Achtemeier, it means that the Spirit was active in the community that gave birth to it. It is a midrash where some of what is said is accurate and some isn't based upon the activity of the Spirit and the openness to the Spirit. It's no good to introduce the whole deus ex machina argument and say God is capable of keeping the Bible inerrant and infallible through millenia and multiple interpretations. God might well be capable, but that doesn't mean God functions that way. God is probably capable of preventing a holocaust or child rape, but seems unwilling to do either.

The question is really does Jesus reveal God to people, and if so, by what means? The Bible is only part of the answer. Everyone who discusses the Bible engages in what Barth called tertiary speaking. God is primary. The testimony (Scripture) is secondary, and our discussions of what the testimony means is tertiary. We can't get to primary, no matter what we say. And secondary is filtered through culture, prejudice, wrong-headedness, etc.

[Scott]

I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. That it is the record of the revelation of God to humankind. That it is the guide to faith and practice. And more. But I think the Christian life is less about what I believe and more about how I experience and remember, proclaim, and strive to practice.

[Scott]

A fuller statement of my views of the Bible: http://www.hnokc.net/specialpage.php?articleid=0721921241121757384691888&appendfile=opinioninstructs.php

[Scott]

And you might read this VERY brief summary: http://escottjones.typepad.com/myquest/2006/08/what_i_mean_whe.html

My sermons have dealt with every major issue of Christian faith, and they would more fully express my practice of the faith.

[Otter]

Scott,

In my chaplaincy work, I struggle with what my response should be to people under my care who think that lgbt people should not be ministers. In that vein, I read this article today that I want to share with you. My classmate Jakob Hero talks about the possibility of reconciliation of queer religious leaders and the ex-gay movement.

http://www.queerphilosophy.com/articles/a6

[Lee]

You know I am just a mere Christian trying to make in this world one day at a time. What is funny to me though is that you are here arguing about two things. That is whether homosexuality is a sin and if the Bible is plausable in the scripture.

May I address both issues? In simple terms Jesus Himself went into the temples of old and read from the very scriptures that we read from today. I would go as far to say that there were scribes that followed him around every moment of every day. You know sort of like our paparatzi of today. Jesus never veered from the scripture of the Old Testament. All he did do is break it down into a latmans way of thinking so it could be understood by the unlearned and those that were not allowed in the tepmles because of hypocriticle reasons. Enough of that. That's another debate foe another date.

Now to the matter at hand:Genesis 19
1And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

Now these men that came to Lot's door was wanting to "know them". Only someone who is unlearned would not know what they were meaning by that phrase. All through out the Bible it speaks of this.

Leviticus 18:22
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:20-27
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

I will stop on that note. I am sorry if you are affended at these scriptures. However your ought is with God not me. I hope you understand that it is wrong. We are given free will by God. If we choose to omit or disregard the fact that homosexuality is a sin then we should disregard the fact that the Bible is devie diety from God. If we were to quickly dismiss the fact that some one can be healed by simply praying and beleiving it to be so, then it is okay for you to use the Bible as just a guideline out of convienence or reference in supporting you views. But remember that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. But please please my friends do not mistake the fact that we must stive daily to perfect in God's eyes. So to say that are you perfect in your neighbors eye's because your neighbor may just very well be God in the flesh. No one person knows for sure but God Himself.

Revelation 22:18-19:
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

It is not that I reject the Gay community. I just reject their lifestyle. God be with you all.

lee

[Scott]

Lee, please take the time to respond to the hundreds of biblical passages that can be interpreted in a way affirming of LGBT people. Look through all my sermons and you will find those.