2009 SBC Annual Meeting Review, Part 3
Posted byApart from the task-force motion, this year’s convention involved very few business items, although the few matters accomplished were important.
Broadway Baptist Church and Homosexuality
I take special comfort in several aspects of the convention’s action to acknowledge that Broadway Baptist Church of Fort Worth is in fact not in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention:
First, the overwhelming support for the decision is a good sign. It is a healthy thing that this process was carefully deliberative, taking more than a year to unfold; however, it is also a good thing that Southern Baptists took this action so clearly and with such unanimity. Full opportunity was available to object for anyone who wished to do so. The item was published in the day’s bulletin. It came in the normal flow of business from the Executive Committee. The floor was open for discussion, and none came forward to offer any discussion. I think the reason behind the calm is that Broadway’s case was and is a weak one, and Southern Baptists were and are united in saying so. We are not presently anywhere close to abandoning God’s word on this question.
Second, the fact that our decision received so little media attention is telling. It shows that, once our stand has been made clear on the divisive issues of our day, it is no longer news when we simply act according to our convictions. Change is news; faithfulness is not. If we remain faithful on this question, without changing to chase the culture, then our unchanging consistent actions will not be newsworthy to the world. What is true for the question of homosexuality is true for the other major moral questions of our day as well.
Third, the Southern Baptist Convention is a place where we are able to talk about homosexuality because we enjoy unity around the plain teaching of the Bible. May it continue to be so. At the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship’s annual meeting, some controversy ensued over the group’s denial of Frank Tupper’s request for a conversation about homosexuality in a breakout session at the 2009 meeting (HT: Aaron Weaver, “The Workshop That Never Was“). In the aftermath, in response to the CBF’s decision as much as the SBC’s action, Marv Knox has advocated that the BGCT embark upon the conversation toward a softer stance on the question of homosexuality (see Marv Knox’s editorial in The Baptist Standard, “It’s Time to Talk about Homosexuality“).
Well, Southern Baptists are talking about homosexuality. We have been talking about homosexuality. And our talking has been what it should be—a proclamation of God’s word to a world whose greatest need is to hear it above all else. Of course, there are people within the Southern Baptist Convention who would like for the SBC to stop talking about homosexuality (for fear that the world might be offended by God’s truth). It does not serve the Kingdom well for the truth to be muzzled. I’m thankful for the Southern Baptist Convention’s prophetic boldness on this matter. Yes, people need to hear the gospel, but when Jesus came to present the gospel to people, His plan for the perfect lead-in to the presentation of the gospel was to have John the Baptist bring a stern and stinging message of repentance to the world. For the sake of the gospel, we must continue to point people to God’s condemnation of sin and must continue to call them to repentance.
Mark Driscoll and Acts 29
A great deal of heat at the annual meeting surrounded the question of someone who is not even a Southern Baptist—Acts 29 leader Mark Driscoll. The specific item of discussion was Driscoll’s informal relationship with Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. Driscoll has earned fame for leading a big church and infamy for employing profanity in his preaching, for gratuitous salaciousness in his treatment of the Song of Solomon, for the church’s web site linking people toward online pornography, for outbursts of anger, and for telling a group of Christians in Scotland that Christ commands wives to perform fellatio upon their husbands. The Acts 29 network has also been controversial among Southern Baptists for making the recreational consumption of alcoholic beverages in taverns and bars a lynchpin of their church planting strategy in some cases.
At this year’s annual meeting in Louisville, the Missouri Baptist Laymen’s Association (MBLA) attempted to distribute a fact sheet about Acts 29 in the concourse. They were denied permission to do so and apparently even threatened with possible legal action if they persisted in doing so. Regardless of your opinion about Driscoll, Acts 29, or the MBLA, it seems to me to trend toward tyranny that our Executive Committee would be engaged in the forcible suppression of registered SBC messengers disseminating information that they deem important. We have no Baptist Politburo, do we?
And lest you conclude that concerns about Driscoll and Acts 29 reside solely in the Show-Me State, or that it arises out of the old bogeyman of Southern Baptist traditionalism, you might take a look at what John MacArthur has to say on the matter, starting here. If you think that it might be a matter of anti-Calvinism, you might give consideration to the words of Dr. Peter Masters (present pastor of London’s Metropolitan Tabernacle…that’s right…the church Spurgeon pastored) in his article “The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness” (from the Sword & Trowel)
In my opinion, the future of the Southern Baptist Convention needs to look nothing like any of the controversial aspects of Acts 29. In other words, and to be perfectly plain, in every manner in which Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 are controversial, I believe that Mark Driscoll and Acts 29 are wrong. If they were the only people in the United States who were planting churches and winning souls to Jesus, then I could understand our entities’ ongoing involvement of him in Southern Baptist life. But he is not. He brings nothing to the SBC table that cannot be brought there by other leaders who share all of his strengths and none of his weaknesses.
Let us not fight over Mark Driscoll and Acts 29. Let us not go out of our way to criticize or demean or attack Acts 29. And let us accomplish all of this in the simplest and most straightforward manner—by wishing them godspeed as they go their way to do the work of the Kingdom and we go ours. No drive-bys. No shots across the bow. Just a simple acknowledgement that Southern Baptists share in the faith that it is possible to reach the world effectively with the gospel without stooping to these kinds of approaches—because the gospel is effective intrinsically to itself, and need not be dressed up in Pabst or “Christian Nymphos” in order to sell. The fight will go away when we have settled that matter clearly.
Resolutions
The resolution on President Obama struck precisely the right tone. The people of America were commended for not being racists (haven’t conservatives been making that claim for a long time now?). President Bush was indirectly commended for putting into place policies that keep us safe (i.e., President Obama was commended for retaining some Bush policies). President Obama was not commended for anything that he has actually enacted as his own policy. Rather, a set of harsh verbs expressed the extreme dislike of the Southern Baptist Convention for Obama’s governing preferences. The resolution also called for a resolve among Southern Baptists to pray for our President. And that we certainly need to do.
The resolution on Adoption & Orphan Care hits close to home for me. Go online right now and purchase your copy of Adopted for Life by Russell D. Moore. There you’ll find the heart of the resolution (also authored by Moore) as well as a good deal more. It was right for Southern Baptists to adopt this resolution. May we all consider adopting a good deal more than a statement.
Conclusion
It was a good year for Southern Baptists. Better years await us, I am confident. Next year we gather in Orlando. I predict a very high messenger count in conjunction with very low attendances. Many SBC pastors will be riding Aladdin’s Magic Carpet with the kiddos. But we should give consideration to a careful regimen of prayer this year for the Reorganization Task Force and for our convention, followed by a commitment to attend next year’s meetings. I predict that the events after the 2009 annual meeting, including the 2010 gathering in Orlando, will be among the more influential years in recent Southern Baptist history, considering the potential impact of the Reorganization Task Force’s recommendations and the other issues swirling around in the Southern Baptist wind.
25 Comments
July 13th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“We have no Baptist Politburo, do we?”
Maybe we do?
Did the MBLA folks cave in to the apparent threat of possible legal action — or not?
July 13th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
One of the exhibitors gave them space within their exhibit to distribute their materials.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Mr. Kenney,
Thanks for the info. Most interesting.
JND
July 13th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I followed the link you provided to Marv Knox’s editorial in the Baptist Standard, and after reading it (reading it carefully, I think) I cannot agree that he is attempting to soften the traditional Baptist stance on homosexuality. In fact, he is careful to point out that he “cannot ignore the plain teachings of Scripture” on this subject, which clearly indicate that homosexual activity is sinful.
What Mr. Knox appears to me to be advocating is not that we soften our stance on homsexuality, but that we harden our stance on other activities which the Bible says are just as sinful–and yet which seem to be more “acceptable” in most Baptist churches.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Mr. Knox’s implication is not that we become more stringent in other areas, but that we become as lax with regard to homosexuality as in other areas. He is arguing for consistency, yes—but he is arguing for a consistent weakness rather than a consistent strength.
It seems to me, from reading what he has written, that he would have us maintain the academic distinction that homosexuality is a sin, but that it should not be actionable.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
And if I am wrong, I’d be curious to hear what, specifically, it is about the ongoing conversation in the SBC about homosexuality that Marv finds objectionable, but that would be acceptable if the CBF or the BGCT were to open such a conversation?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
First, let me thank you for your gracious reply.
Second, as to your statement: “It seems to me, from reading what he has written, that he would have us maintain the academic distinction that homosexuality is a sin, but that it should not be actionable.”
What I hear you saying (please correct me if I am mis-stating your position) is that there is no real distinction between having homosexual urges (or inclinations) and acting on those urges.
Let’s compare that to, for example, a person who has strong urges to commit heterosexual fornication or adultery (if those are indeed two separate things). We hear of individuals who have a so-called “sexual addiction,” which might be expressed either by resorting to the viewing of pornography or through actually committing the physical act of sexual intercourse with others (of the opposite sex) to whom they are not married. But so long as those persons keep their urges in check through prayer and reliance on God’s strength, we applaud them for not giving in to their weakness. Would the same standard not apply to certain individuals who (for whatever reason) have attraction to others of their own sex, but who do not act on those impulses (“remaining celebate”), to use Mr. Knox’s words)?
Perhaps that is the real issue: How homosexual individuals choose to respond to their urges. They can acknowledge those desires as unnatural and contrary to God’s plan for sexuality, and fight against those temptations through prayer and reliance upon God; or else they can say “this is how I am, just accept it and let me live my life as I choose.” Clearly those are two different things. But certainly we can agree on this point, can we not, that being tempted is no sin, but giving into those temptations is sin?
July 13th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
LFJ,
It seems to me the issue is not inclinations. Broadway appears to have practicing homosexuals in church leadership. Also, it was church homosexual “couples” who wished their “family” photos in the church pictorial directory. To not take a clear stand on the issue, the church excluded both heterosexual and homosexual family photos and just allowed individual photos. Among other things, that seems to be somewhat anti-family; anti biblical, traditional family. Broadway seems to have moved beyond “welcoming” and into “affirming” homosexuality.
By the way, Bart is right. Southern Baptists have had extensive discussions on homosexuality. Just do a search at bpnews.net for some great articles in the last several years. And if homosexuality is sinful and self-destructive, the most caring thing is to tactfully, lovingly oppose it.
David R. Brumbelow
July 13th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
LFJ,
You do miss my intention. I think that there is every difference in the world between inclination and action, for all the reasons that you have indicated and more.
By “actionable” in my previous comment, I meant merely that it is one thing for a church to say, “We believe that homosexual sex is a sin,” and it is another thing for a church to act upon that belief. Whoever is in favor of the former but opposed to the latter is, it seems to me, someone in favor of holding the “academic distinction” but who does not want the violation of that distinction to be “actionable” in the churches.
Looking in context, we’re all talking about homosexual couples living together at Broadway Baptist Church, not some poor soul furtively struggling with inward desires. The churches of the Southern Baptist Convention not only said that we believe that homosexual action is a sin, but we further took the step of declaring Broadway Baptist Church to be not in friendly cooperation with our convention because they admit to membership, affirm in church leadership, and take no disciplinary action toward those who in a flamboyant manner are habitual and deliberate practitioners of homosexual activity and wish to be acknowledged as such in the church directory.
Marv is unhappy with the SBC’s taking that action. So, Marv wishes to open a conversation toward a different solution. That is why I conclude that Marv’s conversation leads to a “softer” outcome.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
David,
Our comments crossed one another. My apologies for unwittingly repeating you.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
David, I agree in part with your response, because the BBC situation does in fact appear to involve a case of the second order to which I referred in the final paragraph of my previous comment (i.e. “This is how I am and it’s no one else’s business,” or words to that effect).
But that particular case aside, I was responding specifically to the final sentence of his comment #5, at 3:21 PM (which, admittedly, I might be misinterpreting).
Blessings.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Bart,
And our comments passed each other in the ether as well. Thanks again for your reply.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
LFJ,
My pleasure
July 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
LFJ & Bart,
.
We may be ships passing in the ether, but we seem to be getting along well
David R. Brumbelow
July 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Brother Bart,
This post is excellent my friend…really good stuff. I think you also were right on target about the “Standard” article. I have pasted in a post I made over at BDW’s place on Marv’s view. Marv is a little left of the target IMHO.
………………..
Brother BDW,
I think there are several important issues that you have advanced here. First, as the editor of the Baptist Standard has described,…there is a certain misunderstanding of how to deal with the sin of “degrading passion” when compared to other sin such as “bigotry, lording over, hating your brother, hating the world, or not dividing the word of God correctly”.
The sin of degrading passion is no different, yet when identified it may appear in a more demonstrative fashion making both groups of sinners uncomfortable.
Homosexuals, the term used to corral individuals involved and committed to degrading passion, are upset with the “Christians” that speak against degrading passion and “Christians” that live a life of hypocrisy are upset and spew out “sinful” behavior in an attempt at a defense against the sin of degrading passion as if it is the “only” real sin. The bottom line is that no one likes their sin exposed; not the homosexual that is committed to degrading passion or the pastor/overseer who is lusting after the pianist that is not his wife.
In his article Marv is correct to say…..
“But the issue presents broader implications than the affiliation of one church. Homosexuality will not go back into the closet. Besides, most churches of any size likely include gay and lesbian members, in the open or not.”
He’s right,… in an American pop culture that is infatuated with the homosexual experience, the “closet” is no longer the only safe haven for acceptance of degrading passion any longer…. The safeness for sin has broadened in the American culture,…..which is not necessarily a freedom. In fact, the sin of adultery is no different than the sin of homosexuality; both are sins of degrading passion. It seems now this is where it specifically oozes into the church, where even the pastors and deacons now engage in sin without even a blink of the eye, as long as it is democratically accepted in their congregations. Leaders seem to be testing the credulity of the church these days at unprecedented levels.
Where Marv begins to miss the real debate though is this…..he said,
“Likewise, I do not feel their same-sex yearnings alone comprise sin. Humans are responsible for actions, not feelings. So, we must differentiate between homosexuality and homosexual activity.”
Somehow Marv and many others have missed Christ in this pursuit to expose sin. What we think is eventually what we feel. Feelings are never the originator, thinking is. So, sin is intrinsic to the human nature, whether you depict yourself as naturally homosexual or heterosexual. It is obvious that the scriptures address the created order as heterosexual alone in its discourse of presenting Glory to God. Yet, that seems to be the real challenge in our day. As more Christians,… the Christians that are obedient to expose sin, not the ones that are intent on covering up any sin……as these Christians love God and bring glory to Him alone, exposing sin then becomes a breath of fresh air for the church instead of a debate.
Unfortunately, we have a naïve church culture, infatuated with the homosexual story and the billboard sin of church leaders. Many are comfortable seeking those things instead of God’s Glory.
Simple repentance is the answer.
Blessings,
Chris
July 13th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Chris,
I agree that the feeling of homosexual attraction is inherent to the sin-nature. You do well to point us to that fact. However, I do believe that there is a difference between homosexual attraction on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other hand. The former, if resisted and kept in abeyance, is no matter to be subject to church discipline, IMHO. The latter, however, if absent contrite repentance and submission to the Lordship of Christ, the Head of the church, is (to borrow my own terminology from above) “actionable” for the church.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
But how profound is your closing sentence: Simple repentance is the answer.
July 13th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Brother Bart,
My intention concerning the “feelings” aspect, is to include the full rescue for the homosexual or any other sinner for that matter to the higher understanding of the fulfillment aspects of the law by Christ. The renewing of the mind. When a mind is renewed by the Holy Spirit, it is changed to know Christ more fully. I do agree with you that “actionable matters” are clearly only those where an offense is borne out…which is very important to understand, because the response is love and restoration.
btw,…is Southwestern having another Baptist Distinctives conf. this year…. The last one was pretty good…I’d like to come that way again.
Blessings,
Chris
July 13th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I can’t speak to what Marv had in mind with his call for a conversation other than for Baptists to simply discuss the subject.
As I wrote on my blog, I affirm Marv’s call for a conversation. My call for a conversation is not necessarily directed towards Texas Baptists in the BGCT but towards Fellowship Baptists. Obviously, there are a number of Texas Baptists that are also Fellowship Baptists.
However, I would insist that any honest, fruitful dialogue/conversation on homosexuality include multiple perspectives in order to reflect the diverse theological viewpoints that does indeed exist among those in the CBF fold.
I can at least admire the SBC for not dodging the issue.
As an aside, I am constantly impressed by Chris Johnson’s ability to discuss homosexuality with a rather liberal friend of mine. Chris is polite, uses a kind tone, and always has a positive attitude even when voicing strong disagreement.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Bart I agree with you. I think that the SBC and Driscoll should go their seperate ways. I did not think it was right the way the Executive committee seemed to take up for Driscoll and also for TD Jakes. I think both SEBTS and Lifeway should not be associtating with people so controversial and also who have views that do not align with the BF&M as Jakes does not. As a Southern Baptist Pastor when I am asked by people where I recomend them to go get books I believe I should be able to say withou reservation go to Lifeway however with Jakes among others I have seen sold there it is hard to do. I also have what I believe is part of the answer for the GCR thing lets quit just putting all our emphasis on baptism and do what the rest of the Great Commision says and that is to make disciples. Since I was a kid I have heard alot of emphasis on baptism which I agree we must evangelize but we must not stop there. We need to teach them to love Jesus and to obey His commands. My other concern is that the task force outside of the ones from the agencies are all from the south and if I am not wrong they are all from big churches. What works in the south does not work in other part of the country. Also what works in a big church does not neccesarily work in small to medium size churches.
Just a few random thoughts
July 14th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Of course, when mainstream baptists call for a dialogue on homosexuality they mean “How can we avoid actually doing anything about it”.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Joe Blackmon,
Are you Joe B. over on my blog? Must not be.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Kevin,
I like your random thoughts. I hope that others in influence will read them and take note.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Kevin,
I agree with your concerns regarding LifeWay and our seminaries. We need to be consistent in all areas of cooperation and involvement with others in our Evangelical circle.
I pray that Mark Driscoll and the Acts 29 network will continue to distance themselves from dangerous practices, much like Driscoll has done with those in the Emergent movement.
While I am not a ‘Baptist only’ for the books we carry in our LifeWay Stores, I do believe we need to practice more discernment with what authors we advocate by putting them on our shelves.
Sola Gratia!
July 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Chris,
You wrote, “Feelings are never the originator, thinking is.” Are you saying that if we refuse to think a thoiught, or surpress it, we will never feel it? That feelings are a by-product of the conscious though process, and never independent from it? If so, what is your authority (Scriptural or otherwise) for that? If not, exactly what are you saying here? I’m confused.
John