The SBC need not single out homosexuality

Lyn Robbins of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas, blogs a careful assessment of the homosexuality issues for which his church has been brought to the brink of expulsion (disfellowship) from the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). And offers a solution which would serve both his church and the SBC well.

Action was delayed last week and additional information sought by the SBC Executive Committee to which the matter was referred by the SBC annual meeting last June.

Speaking for himself, not in his role as the church's attorney, Robbins argues that the SBC Executive Committee should find there is no compelling reason to expell Broadway Baptist from the denomination. The church's acceptance of homosexuals as members, who serve on church committees, is not sufficient reason. He explains:

According to the most recent amendment to the Southern Baptist Convention constitution, a church is not in friendly cooperation with the SBC if it acts to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. I do not believe Broadway has so acted. Such actions would include things like open statements of affirmation of homosexual behavior or publications of such statements. Such acts could include things like performance of a marriage or marriage-like ceremony between persons of the same gender. Such acts could arguably include ordination of homosexuals. Broadway has done none of those things.

His argument is careful and of necessity therefore complex.

Buried in its core like a diamond deep in a vein of lesser rock, however, is one clear, final argument: If the SBC boots out churches which allow homosexuals to become members and serve on committees, must it not do the same for with regard to other sins?

As he puts it:

How can church pick this one issue as the touchstone for withdrawing membership? Are we next going to excommunicate the gossips, the mean, the greedy, the abusive, the lazy, the gluttonous? I know many who do not believe that tithing is required; I know others who believe that failure to tithe is a sin. Is one side of that debate going to disfellowship the other?

There he may have found the path back up out of the inquisitorial pit which threatens to see the SBC booting out one church after another for welcoming into its midst people who are known to be (in SBC terms) sinners, not to lead the faithful, but to pursue the faith.

If you are seriously concerned about SBC issues, the entire argument deserves your attention here.

Update

Texas Blogger Ken Coffee, a retired Baptist minister, makes a similar point. At his blog "Strong Coffee" he writes:

If I had been a member at Broadway I would have told the SBC that we will dismiss all homosexuals from our church as soon as you dismiss all adulterers from yours.”

When you get rid of all the adulterers, you can start on getting rid of all liars. When the liars are all gone, start getting rid of the gossipers. And on and on.

Now, I sincerely believe homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God, as is any lust of the flesh. But isn’t that what a church is for—to bring sinners under the gospel?

Christa Brown at "Stop Baptist Predators" asks:

If congregational autonomy doesn’t preclude the SBC from investigating a church with gay members, why does congregational autonomy preclude the SBC from investigating a church with a reported clergy child molester in the pulpit?

The author of "Deep in the heart ..." agrees with Christa, asking:

If Broadway is under investigation, then why are these other churches, especially those where the abusers continue to serve, not under investigation also? All it would require, apparently, is a motion from the floor of a convention.