|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > Whether and how gay church members pictures should appear in a pictorial church directory |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
construct Pioneer100© Member  The Boy Next Door
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxglovepress wrote:Well I take issue with constructs comment implying that I either didn't read the article or that I didn't understand it! I thought my concerned answer was appropriate...............if the church has already decided it's a sin, then what's the point? Start your own church affiliation. Unless you want to raise the issue to the public eye like I'm trying to do with my cause. If that's it, I guess the church elders or leaders have the last say about "their book" I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I was responding directly to your comments. If I were doing that, I would have replied before pmh1nic appropriated them. I was taking issue with his appropriation of your comments. Broadway has a long history of avoiding the issue of whether homosexual conduct is a sin per se, and there are several reasons they have avoided that conversation, some of which are mentioned in the article. The short summary of those reasons: There is diversity of opinion on the question, and very few on either side want to make the issue a test of fellowship. Unfortunately for them, the Southern Baptist Convention is so hostile toward gay folk that any appearance of non-judgmental recognition of the presence of gay church members might be construed as a violation of the Convention's bylaws. Broadway includes members who are employed by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, an institution of the Southern Baptist Convention. Any action that Broadway might take would have implications for those members' jobs and might cause those members to consider transfering their memberships to other Southern Baptist churches in the area. The articles do not mention this rather important factor which complicates the conversation. Again, I apologize for giving offense to you, FGP. I have no issue with you on this matter. Last edited on 06:39 pm by construct |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote:pmh1nic wrote:24hn I think this part of the exchange captures pretty well the underpinnings of the conversation going on at Broadway. What it misses are the feelings, the emotional investment, of the members on all sides. In order for the discussion we are hoping will happen at Broadway to be a good process, members on all sides must feel the freedom to express their fears, resentments, anxieties, hopes, dreams, commitments, etc. They must have the freedom to tell their own stories of their own pilgrimages in an open and affirming setting where every person's worth is respected. I have no reason to doubt that Broadway's leadership is aware of this and will do everything in their power to allow that conversation to happen. Last edited on 06:41 pm by construct |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote:I have to admit, this is always something I've had a hard time understanding. If your congregation is basically giving you the finger, what would the point be of staying? I'm not an activist at heart. If I found a group of people that looked askance at hanidcapped people, I'd just tell them to go chase themselves and seek other company. I don't see any of these Southern churches as particularly friendly to homosexuals. I respect the stand you're trying to make, but I don't paritcularly think they deserve your fellowship, Construct. Oh, I removed myself from seeking fellowship with Broadway Baptist Church about fifteen years ago. I withdrew from fellowship with the Southern Baptist Convention in 1989. My past experience allows me to sympathize with those gay members that have found a pocket of acceptance among the membership at Broadway Baptist Church. Those gay members and accepting straight members are trying to find a way to embody their understanding of the demands of the gospel in the context of a precariously positioned church in a hostile denomination. No doubt some of them would love to see the church (how shall we say) "distanced" from the Southern Baptist Convention because of a number of disagreements including this one. Others want to continue the church's "big tent" approach in which all sides are welcomed. One thing to remember about traditional Baptist thought is that each member is expected to read and interpret the Bible for him or herself. No person has the authority to limit another Baptist's construction of scripture.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Construct "Unfortunately for them, the Southern Baptist Convention is so hostile toward gay folk that any appearance of non-judgmental recognition of the presence of gay church members might be construed as a violation of the Convention's bylaws." This is really the issue FGP was addressing. In part your reply "Broadway includes members who are employed by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, an institution of the Southern Baptist Convention" answers her quesiton on why Broadway would want to be associated with an organization that is "hostile toward gay folks." But the answer highlights what I believe is a fundamental flaw with respect to the intellectual, theological and moral principles motivating the leadership of the church AND the issue FGP was addressing. This isn't just a manner of a minor disagreement between the leadership at the headquarters of a denomination and a local church. If the leadership in the church disagrees with the SBC on this issue then they should have the courage of conviction to be frank about that disagreement and if necessary suffer the consequences. BTW, I haven't read the article and do not know all the issues involved. The Bible says "love covers a multitude of sins". But the covering requires an acknowledgement of sin. The idea that you gloss over the sin (to the point of refusing to acknowledge it as sin) for the sake of "fellowship" is NOT a principle I find taught in the Bible. And before anyone starts bashing me as being "holier then thou" or self-righteous let me add "ALL have sinned" (including me) and "we stumble and fall in many way" (including me) and "except for His mercy I would be consumed" (that includes me). This has nothing to do with my personal sin or the individual sins of others. This is about what constitutes sin according to the Bible (we're talking about Christianity here) and the Biblical teaching on how sin is to be addressed by the church.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote:Construct I agree with you. Nothing would please me more than Broadway's realizing that the Convention has departed so thoroughly from traditional Baptist distinctives that it can no longer continue to affiliate with the Convention in good conscience. However, there is in some circles a kind of fetishism of the three letters SBC which motivates a refusal to jeopardize that affiliation. They remember a day when the denomination's unified budget glossed over a multitude of differences on many issues and long to return to that day. BTW, I haven't read the article and do not know all the issues involved. The Bible says "love covers a multitude of sins". But the covering requires an acknowledgement of sin. The idea that you gloss over the sin (to the point of refusing to acknowledge it as sin) for the sake of "fellowship" is NOT a principle I find taught in the Bible. Actually, the immediate issue has to do with Article I of the Convention's bylaws which states in part that any church that "approves, affirms, or endorses homosexuality is not a cooperating Southern Baptist church." The issue is whether the publication of gay couples' pictures in a pictorial directory constitutes approving, affirming, or endorsing. The question of whether homosexuality is a sin may be implicit in the immediate issue, but it is not directly implicated, and the issue could be decided without reaching the secondary issue of sin. Last edited on 06:57 pm by construct |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member  NON-PC!!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
construct wrote: foxglovepress wrote: Apology excepted, and thank you. In light of the direction this conversation has taken, I think they should try to remain with the "big tent" concept, and here's why. You made a statement " ("One thing to remember about traditional Baptist thought is that each member is expected to read and interpret the Bible for him or herself. No person has the authority to limit another Baptist's construction of scripture.") If that's the case, there is no reason for this controversy! My question now would be, should they really push this picture issue at this time, or keep the "talks open" with members who do except them for awhile longer? Take a more inconspicuous avenue to gain the popular vote. I think it's a sad situation to be in. I understand the Church view to a point, and I understand wanting to take a stand for something you believe in. I hope they work it out for the better of both groups involved.
 Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic, I'm reticent to cut and paste the entire articles here because of copywrite concerns. I will provide a link to a Dallas Morning News article and a quote from a statement prepared by the chair of the deacons. Perhaps that will help until you get home and can access the other (better) links. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-baptists_03met.ART0.State.Edition1.3688a03.html "We will continue to discuss this issue together as a church family," Kathy Madeja, chair of the deacons, said in a prepared statement. "We do not want to rush to make a decision, but rather to continue to listen to each other and for God's leading for our church. Our members have diverse opinions about many things, but what we have in common is our love for God, the church and each other."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
construct wrote: One thing to remember about traditional Baptist thought is that each member is expected to read and interpret the Bible for him or herself. No person has the authority to limit another Baptist's construction of scripture. How does this square with the idea that everyone at the Broadway church has to refrain from approving, endorsing, or affirming homosexuality? If everyone is supposed to read and interpret the Bible on their own, how does the SBC have any right at all to tell people how to deal with homosexuality? 
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxglovepress wrote:My question now would be, should they really push this picture issue at this time, or keep the "talks open" with members who do except them for awhile longer? Take a more inconspicuous avenue to gain the popular vote. I think it's a sad situation to be in. I understand the Church view to a point, and I understand wanting to take a stand for something you believe in. I hope they work it out for the better of both groups involved. The only way I can see of avoiding the issue at this point is to scuttle the "pictorial" aspect of the directory. The book would then include pictures showing the church's history and ministries and an alphabetical directory of the members without pictures. In earlier discussions, that approach was rejected. The deacons also rejected the publication of the gay couples' pictures as couples and recommended the publication of their pictures as individuals. The congregation implicitly rejected that recommendation (or at least postponed its acceptance) by sending the proposal back to the deacons for further consideration. If that congregational action of postponing and recommitting doesn't send some sort of message, I don't know what would. That is one of the reasons I remain hopeful about the situation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
foxglovepress Forum-Blogger© Original500© Member NON-PC!!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
construct wrote: foxglovepress wrote: To me, those are very good faith options! I'll be checking in to see what happens.........
Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote:construct wrote:One thing to remember about traditional Baptist thought is that each member is expected to read and interpret the Bible for him or herself. No person has the authority to limit another Baptist's construction of scripture. The Convention does not have the right under the bylaws to restrict the biblical interpretation of any individual Baptist. It does, however, have the right to exclude from the Convention any church that acts in violation of the bylaws. There are few precedents that help in interpreting the Article I provision quoted above. Ordaining or licensing an openly gay minister or deacon would be a violation. Hosting the holy union ceremony of a gay couple would be a violation. Including a straight advocate for gay equality in church membership would not be a violation. I don't know of any other church action that has definitively been ruled on by the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. Last edited on 07:49 pm by construct |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm sure it is obvious that the issue of publishing the pictures is the tip of the iceberg with respect to a more fundamental conflict in the church. While the comment that all members are free to read and intepret the Bible for themself maybe true someone's or some groups interpretation is going to establish what constitutes accepted practice on the part of the church as a whole. "The deacons also rejected the publication of the gay couples' pictures as couples and recommended the publication of their pictures as individuals." Did the deacons reject the proposal to publish the pictures because THEY view it as condoning sin or because they believe the SBC would view it as condoning sin? If the deacons rejected the proposal to publish the pictures because they believe it amounts to condoning sin then there isn't anything more to consider. If the deacons rejected the proposal out of fear for how the publication of the pictures would be viewed by the SBC they are no longer qualified to be deacons in my opinion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote:I'm sure it is obvious that the issue of publishing the pictures is the tip of the iceberg with respect to a more fundamental conflict in the church. I don't know for sure. I suspect that there were deacons holding both of those positions who voted for the recommendation. I also doubt that the deacons' vote was unanimous in favor of the recommendation. I also suspect that the meeting during which the recommendation was considered lasted several hours. If the deacons rejected the proposal to publish the pictures because they believe it amounts to condoning sin then there isn't anything more to consider. Maybe. Maybe not. The deacons act for the church when the membership is not in business session. The membership can reject a recommendation from the deacons or, as in this instance, recommit a recommendation for further study. The next consideration of this issue by the membership is set for Feb. 24, 2008. If the deacons rejected the proposal out of fear for how the publication of the pictures would be viewed by the SBC they are no longer qualified to be deacons in my opinion. I disagree. In light of the fact that several members are employees of the Convention, the church would, I believe, be remiss in its responsibilities to its members not to take into account the possible consequences of its actions for its affiliations. Those consequences must figure into the equation if the church is to act in good faith toward all its members.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Saint Forum-Blogger© Pioneer100© Member  Polymath
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
construct wrote:the Southern Baptist Convention's bylaws that says that no church that "affirms, approves, or endorses" homosexuality may be a Southern Baptist church. Pfft on semantics. Since you already have several gay couples, I suggest you split, start your own church, and become the "Southern Baptist Church of the Reformation" which in it's bylaws says that a person's sexual orientation is none of the church's business. Actually, I find it strange that any homosexuals would want to be a part of a Baptist church. The ones I have attended are some of the most rabid, hating, Hellfire-and-brimstone, You're-all-going-to-Hell-in-a-split-second churches I ever saw.
A^2 + B^2 = C^2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
