Loading ...The congregation’s ties to the Southern Baptist Convention could be severed, if SBC officials determine that the church isn’t sufficiently opposed to homosexuality, Associated Baptist Press reports.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 18th, 2009 at 5:13 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Bad Behavior has blocked 0 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Presented by: ArkansasOnline | Frank Lockwood on behalf of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette | Copyright © 2010 BibleBeltBlogger.com | All rights reserved.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Well, in the old days, I suppose a Southern Baptist congregation that was not firm enough on racial segregation might have been thrown out, today, when they can’t discriminate racially, they move on to sexual orientation; the more things change, the more they stay the same.
February 20th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Now Caleb, you ought to know that when two men have their photo taken together it devalues every photo of every straight couple. Obviously. We must protect the sacred institution of heterosexual photography.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Next thing you know, Jose, these Baptists will be dancing, which is okay, so long as it’s not with each other, and particularly not if they’re both male.
February 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm
This sort of toleration of gays in the church would never have been permitted in the Church in the great days of German power in the 1930s and early 1940s. It was Verbotten!
February 21st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Asinus….
1) It’s spelled “verboten” (and adjectives are usually not capitalized in German… nouns are, but not adjectives).
2) Godwin… Godwin… Godwin…
Jose and Caleb….
It is sad to see the discussion on this blog devolve to simply taking potshots at “fundamentalists, conservatives, evangelicals” and the rest of the great unwashed. It’s getting rather tiresome.
You both regularly take positions differing from the vast majority of the Christian world, and against the teachings of Christian tradition, and do so in a manner of utter certitude and in a dismissive tone towards all those who disagree with you.
My question to you would be…. does your “liberal Christian faith” allow for any doubt? And doubt on which side- the liberal or the Christian?
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
It’s odd to see someone charging that theological liberals allow no room for doubt. The stereotype is that the libs lack conviction and are entirely too comfortable with uncertainty.
UK, I reserve the right to poke fun at stubborn faulty reasoning, intolerance, and silly behavior. Unfortunately, those are frequent characteristics of contemporary conservative religious thought. If you feel the need to challenge me for being unduly critical of any group MERELY because they are conservative or evangelical then be my guest. But for goodness sakes, be specific about your objections! Generalized and unsubstantiated accusations won’t do. I don’t intend to criticize anyone merely for having too much faith, nor for having too little, as long as they are sincere in their own beliefs while being tolerant and understanding of others who are sincerely searching for great truth. Unfortunately, a great many people seem to think that a deep personal faith requires them to damn everyone else.
As for this particular case, it gets weirder the more I think about it. If the SBC wants enforce its doctrine of the sinfulness of homosexual relations, OK. The high muckety-mucks in the SBC should have insisted on a clear and businesslike discussion with the congregation at Broadway Baptist Church a long time ago. But to go nuclear over this, two guys appearing together in the same photograph, is really going over the edge. How are you going to police that rule, UK? Demand that legal proof of family status be presented to the censor board before sitting for the photographer? I can think of several situations that defy easy judgment. Take the case of two elderly people who live together for the sake of finances, security, and friendship. They are not married, and may be of the same sex. Over time they build a deep affection, as strong as any family bond. Would you prohibit them from appearing in a photograph as a pair, even if it were apparent to everyone that there was no illicit hanky-panky involved? I think it would be sweet. And my faith tells me that Jesus would agree.
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
UKLutheran, my ideas are what they are. If they are against those of the vast majority of the Christian world, I’m sorry. But they clearly are well within the long tradition of Christianity, though perhaps they are not within the narrow view of Christianity that has won out over the past two hundred years or so.
As for the SBC, it is an organization that was formed to support slavery, had its existence for the next hundred years intertwined with that of segregation and racial animosity, and has now decided to vent the rancor that formerly went against blacks against gays. If my absolute lack of respect for any organization that would do these things comes out, I’m sorry, but yes, it is difficult for me to take these people seriously.
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“It’s odd to see someone charging that theological liberals allow no room for doubt. The stereotype is that the libs lack conviction and are entirely too comfortable with uncertainty.”
My experience has been that theological liberals tend to be just as dogmatic as theological conservatives- they are just dogmatic about different things…
(I also did not want to be overly provocative, and I am thankful you both were open and forthright with your responses.)
The second part of my question- “doubt on which side- the liberal or the Christian” was meant to get at part of that dogmatic nature. For example, many theological liberals are very open to doubt and questions as to the tenets of the Christian faith, the reliability of the Biblical witness, the teachings of the church, etc. etc.
At the same time, many of these people (though certainly not all) are not very open to doubt when it comes to their political beliefs (the same can, of course, be said about many “conservative” Christians). So part of what I was trying to ask is whether you have ever considered that your convictions could be wrong- particularly your social/political convictions as they impact the Christian faith.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
UK, one reason why I dislike the “liberal / conservative” labels is that they are so often wrong. Sadly, there don’t seem to be any good alternatives. (Sometimes I use “left /right”, when the context is political.) You are surely correct that many on the left are dogmatic and intolerant. That definition doesn’t fit my understanding of liberalism.
As for your very personal question, heck yeah I examine and question all of my personal beliefs, and probably more doggedly than I challenge the beliefs of others. After all, it’s myself that I have to answer for. You seem to presume that Caleb and I are reckless because we ignore how our openmindedness might affect the life of the church. I won’t speak for Caleb, but as for me you’ve got it entirely backwards. I am keenly aware of the interactions between church and society. It is because of the Good News that I speak out against social injustices. Furthermore, I strongly believe that it’s the OTHER guys who so often stray from the true faith with their politics and social prejudices.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:21 am
For sometime I have been pondering on what exactly ‘evil’ is that society has not condone at one time or another. While we all assume what is morally right or wrong by our own actions that does not simplify the question. The Bible condoned many things as slavery, multiple marriages, even mass murder through wars. Many religions have taught for years that dancing, wearing Jewelry, smoking, drinking are also ‘sins’ yet many of these things are not “Biblical”.
so my next question is to all of you here, what exactly should we base our moral standards on if it is not the Bible?
February 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
My answer is simple, Peach. I think we should base our moral standards on the golden rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and I think we should further base our actions on Jesus’ commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves.
I think many evils have come about because we used the Bible as an excuse not to do our own moral thinking. I cannot imagine that anyone who ever owned a slave didn’t know, deep down, that whatever the Bible might have said about slavery, that the institution was wrong, and that the holding of one of God’s children as a slave was wrong. Ditto racial segregation, which was also carried on in the name of religion, and discrimination against gays and lesbians, which is currently justified by reference to holy writ.
Procedurally, as I’ve written on this blog many times, the Anglican tradition is to learn from the Bible, but to also learn from experience, reason, and church tradition. But what all that really adds up to is deciding if what you’re doing is really doing unto others as you’d have them do unto you, and loving your neighbor as yourself. If not, it’s wrong.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Peach, I’m pretty sure this has been said before, but it makes no sense to talk about biblical standards as though they are clear and simple. They are not. Different people, different churches, different eras, all of these have a different understanding of the Gospel message. Caleb cites the Golden Rule, which appears in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and yet this command is often twisted or tossed aside by people who claim that the Bible is the literal word of God, without error or contradiction. Would you say that Caleb’s moral standards, based on the Golden Rule and the Great Commandment, are unbiblical? Why?
Our Methodist tradition is similar to that of the Anglican faith as stated by Caleb. Scripture is indeed our guide, but it must be interpreted and applied through the lenses of tradition, experience, and reason. I can’t fathom why this is difficult for people to understand and accept. No one uses the Bible without interpretation.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I meant for the previous post to be direct but not insulting. Sincere apologies to Peach if it seems offensive.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 am
Jose it seems that you are always apologizing for stating your beliefs. The Bible is very clear on what is right or wrong~ it is man’s interpretation of the Bible that leads to confusion.