News-Record.com

I find the policy of excluding gay people by the Baptists to be the up most in hypocrisy. Whatever happened to the Christian love they are supposed to be living? What about judge not? Why are they wasting energy on such issues when other more pressing concerns could be filling their hearts? If the Baptists don't want us, the Methodists, the UCC and lots of other Christian faiths do.

A couple of quibbles with your headline: it misstates the news, which is that churches who embrace gay members will be excluded; and by using the language of the church ("repent") it risks leaving the realm of reporting for advocacy.

I have no idea what Ed Cone is talking about. Clearly, the action is aimed at excluding gays.

What is it with the Baptist and the gays anyway? What about churches that don't bar unrepentent drinkers or smokers or adulterers? What about those of us who unashamedly flout Old Testament edicts about eating shellfish or cloven-hooved beasts?

I simply don't understand what the Baptists are so fixated on gays.

Nancy, perhaps you could give us some background on how the Convention reacted to the quest for civil rights for African Americans four or five decades ago.

I would be interested in knowing how the local Baptist ministers voted in the anti-gay state convention vote. Is that something the News and Record would report?

Perhaps this will act to weed out any tendency toward librul thought that may have survived all earlier attempts to stamp it out before now? Honestly, I wonder why any moderate or liberal Baptists are still bothering to associate with these demagogues. If they want to turn the SBC into a nation-wide associuation of Westboro Baptist Churches, more power to them.

Emery, of course it's aimed at excluding gays, but the mechanism for doing so is to cut ties with churches that accept gays.

Laurelyn: I'm trying to find that out today.
Ed: I should have put repent in quotations, so I'm glad you mentioned that. I focused on openly gay churchgoers being excluded because even as the "penalty" is against the church, it would essentially prevent that group of churchgoers from the same rights of everyone else in the pews.

Perhaps the Baptists were more interested in being Biblically and morally correct than they were in politically correct agendas.

Laurelyn: I'm trying to find that out today.
Ed: I should have put repent in quotations, so I'm glad you mentioned that. I focused on openly gay churchgoers being excluded because even as the "penalty" is against the church, it would essentially prevent that group of churchgoers from the same rights of everyone else in the pews.

I don't see why a church would exclude unrepentent adulterers, pedophiles, murderers, arsonists,etc. Are these people being discriminated against? Don't they have rights? Shouldn't the church just love them and not criticize them?

Is it wrong to criticize and judge other peoples beliefs and lifestyles? If so, why are you criticizing and judging baptists?

It could be that the Baptist church organization is less interested in rehabilitating by welcoming sinners of all sorts (by their definitions) than they are interested in making news about their self-perceived "gay agenda," and therefore they are the ones who are leaving the realm of religion and treading not-so-lightly into politics.

Sue:

The basic issue is whether the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is a sin? Please explain how that is political and why that is not within the scope of the church?

ECUMan. It is political because the Baptists aren't saying any church that allows adulterers or heavy drinkers to worship will be kicked out of the convention.

No, they're all fixated on homosexuals and homosexuals alone.

Only God knows why.

Dear Nancy, I appreciate you printing this article of the NC Baptist Bigot Society in the paper to show North Carolinians how hypocrisy and bigotry is bred in this fine southern state by the biggest sinners of all time. I have been a heterosexual Christian man for 53 years, served both Republicans and Democrats during my 20-year Navy career, and I am ashamed for anyone to know that I retired from a great Navy life serving our great country of freedoms and liberties, as well as the entire world in the name of peace and democracy, to live out the rest of my days and years in the most unrighteous and the most filthy bigoted state of hypocrisy on God's beautiful planet!! Jesus once said, "Let those who have not sinned cast the first stone", when a mob was about to stone a woman for committing adultery. This Baptist constitution is full of SATAN's work where only the most unrighteous bigots and phoney Christians enjoy playing God for their own personal satisfaction and misinterpretations of morals! From news reports during the last few years, it seems like the real hypocrites and bigots of todays society are the Catholic pedophiles, and the G.O.Pediphiles, and now the Baptist bigots who have the audacity to condemn one single person for a lifestyle in which they don't agree, and know absolutely nothing about, while at the same time committing sinful thoughts and behaviors of their own in which the Bible makes it clear that they are also sinful in the eyes of God!! Not allowing a single person to be baptized for any reason is unconscionable, and by denying anyone from being baptized will send these people straight to HELL without mercy!! End of story!! Jesus also said in the Bible, "Thou shalt not judge, for how you judge others, you will be judge just as harshly by God". (Of course, this is paraphrasing, but that's the message that Jesus sent all of us). These unrighteous devils need to be exposed for what they really are - Bigots doing Satan's work - not the Lord's!

This action should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed at any length what the SBC (both local and national) has been about over the past 2-3 years.

These actions still hurt me even though I no longer am affiliated with the SBC. My spiritual roots are there however.

I see this as mainly political in nature. When people talk about "loving the sinner and hating the sin," I gasp. That is just plain BS. A prime example is Bill Clinton, what comes to mind when mentioning that name? I dare say it is not LOVE!

I just wonder how many SBC churches are going to lose the music ministry of their church. I realize this is extremely stereo-typing. However, I know several gay peole in music ministry in SBC churches.

Something that I ponder more is, after churches began to be "disfellowshipped," will the SBC be able to sustain itself financially? I dare say that some of the potential churchs that could be "disfellowshipped" are also large monetary contributors.

As for following the "Bible" on homosexuality, if one person can find where this word is COMPLETELY ACCURATE in being tranlated and transliterated from the texts, then I would enjoy a dialogue. I wait patiently until that time comes.

In Nancy McLaughlin's story in todays N & R this comment is there; ""We certainly won't be walking down the streets of heaven with people from Sodom and Gomorrah," said Ray Seeley of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Canton." When did God appoint this man to determine who would/would not enter heaven? How does Ray know that people from these two ancient cities will not be in heaven? I intend upon making contact with him and finding out.

Shalom

Emery:

How do you know that adulterers or heavy drinkers are not "kicked out"? Are you talking about open, unrepentent adulterers and heavy drinkers or secret ones?

When has the state or national SBC voted to deal with "adulterers or heavy drinkers?" Better yet, when have either of these two sub-groups been an issue at either the state or national SBC conventions? I think this speaks very plain and clear on who the SBC feels is a "threat."

To quote the words of Jesus the Christ, "Jesus heard them and answered, "Healthy people don't need a doctor, but sick people do. Go and learn what the Scriptures mean when they say, `Instead of offering sacrifices to me, I want you to be merciful to others.' I didn't come to invite good people to be my followers. I came to invite sinners."" (Matthew 9. 12, 13 CEV).

I must state emphatically that I do NOT believe the homosexuality is a sin. I am reminded of an old saying; "The church is not a country club for the saints, rather it is a hospital for the ill."

If more people would remember that the basic message of Jesus the Christ is that God sent Christ to redeem a broken humanity. Sadly now, it seems that far too many "humans" seem to think that they are NOT broken. Instead these "unbroken" ones spend wasted time pointing out the brokenness of others stating that those "others" are too broken to participate with those doing the "pointing." Rather, each of us should remember that we are all a part of a broken humanity and need Jesus the Christ to repair the brokenness of our individual lives as well as all humanity.

Until that day comes, we will see more of what the NC Baptist State Convention has done. May each of us find mercy in the sight of God.

Shalom

It's been said that those who win get to write the history books. May it not be so in this case. People need to clearly know that the fundamentalist among Baptist who sponsored and pushed this measure are not the only face of North Carolina Baptists.

Creating an emotionly charged atmosphere in which one can lead by fear and disception makes for effective leadership. While effective, it is not ethical. Under such circumstances many people will exchange the responsiblity of critical thought for the apparent security of following the leader. Many Baptists voting for this issue did so under such influence.

The voice of dissent in this convention has and continues to raise many of the objections I'm reading in the comments previously posted. Opting to avoid unethical means to reach an end, this voice is rarely flashy enough to capture attention. Yet that voice is present.

One ought not write off a person or a church just because of the name Baptist...there's just too much diversity in that name to do so (even if some of that diversity is pushed outside a convention structure). There are many Baptists who wish to engage all of their neighbors as Christ modeled in scripture rather than build walls in the name of purity.

One might read about what a two-thirds majority of Baptists present in Greensboro did through this action and assume that a Baptist would never get to realy know and foster warm and welcoming relationships with homosexuals. The truth of that assumption rests on the individual Baptist in question.

I hope readers will not condem a hypocracy and then repeat it. Rather, realy get know more Baptists and see the diversity that realy is present.

"People need to clearly know that the fundamentalist among Baptist who sponsored and pushed this measure are not the only face of North Carolina Baptists."

That may be so, but they sure are doing their level best to make it that way. I'm glad I left when I did. It would only have gotten worse for me, as I expected.

I want to point out here that when I stopped attending my old Southern Baptist church, you would have called me a "moderate" or perhaps even a "progressive" believer. But those sorts are anathema to fundamentalists, who see anyone who notices gray areas in real life as an enemy of their faith. So when I left my church, it was because of the hostility I experienced from my fellow members who couldn't bear the idea that I might have some valid points to make that didn't fit within their views of "orthodoxy." I imagine the departure of myself and my less-than-fundamentalist notions made some folks happier. I would venture a guess that booting out whole churches that don't toe the line will be a most satisfying process for these folks.

Now, I wonder how many churches will vote to leave the convention on their own rather than submit to the coming Baptist Inquisition?

A spin-off on an old joke:

How can you tell a Baptist from a Methodist in a gay bar?

Answer: The Methodist will speak to you.

As a member of a SBC church, I agree with the stand taken against allowing gay people from becoming church members and leaders in the church. I believe the church doors are open to anyone who wants to attend, but we cannot ignore the growing number of people who are duped into thinking that God winks at an openly sinful lifestyle. Those in leadership positions who think this lifestyle is okay would have no credibility in denouncing any kind of sin. We would rather hear about the love of God than the righteousness and justice of God, but preachers would be teaching only half the truth if they deal with one and not the other. Jesus Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost, and He calls us to follow Him. Sometimes that results in a life of abstinence from sexual activity (gasp!).

Darryl:

You quote scripture when you THINK it supports your view, but you question how it is translated when it does not. How you you know which passages are translated corrrectly? Do you also have that ability in reading Plato's Republic or Homer's Illiad? Are you an expert in textual criticism of ancient documents?

By the way, the people Jesus was referring to in the Matthew 9 passage were ADMITTING THAT THEY WERE SICK (or sinful) not denying it. The SBC decision applies to people and churches who DENY the sinfulness of homosexual activity, not those who accept that they have sinned and repent. Big difference!

I am fascinated by how many people who haven't seen the inside of a church in their entire lives and certainly don't know what is in the Bible offer their opinions on whether or the NC Baptist Convention was right. It is sort of like having Mother Theresa offer commentary on Monday Night Football. (This is not meant as a condemnation, only an admonition that we find out what's in the Bible before we talk about Southern Baptist politics.)

Remember that the Church is governed by different rules than the rest of the world (unfortunately). Too often, people put their own preferences and feelings above what the Bible tells us is right and wrong. This attempt to rationalize sin has weakened the Church. The more that the Church comes to resemble the world around it, the less effective it will be. (Query: Why go to church if the Church's message is the same one you get on MTV?)

While we are called to feed the hungry and clothe the poor, we are also responsible for the spiritual welfare of others. We can feed all the people in the world and still fall short of Jesus' commandment to make fishers of men if we fail to confront people about the need for redemption. We shouldn't be hateful about it, but we need to be honest. (To pararaphrase others, all grace and no truth is wrong; as is all truth and no grace).

Liberals in the Church (and yes, they do exist in Southern Baptist Church even though the Cooperative Baptist Convention would have everyone believe that there are only enlightened "moderates" like them, and shoe-less, dirt-eating fundamentalists), tend to ignore a lot of things in the Bible that they disagreement or which make them feel uncomfortable. The problem is obvious: If the Bible is the Word of God how can one treat it as a buffet, picking those things they like and ignoring everything else. This is, of course, a rhetorical question. We can't very well say that the Bible is the Word of God than say that certain parts of it no longer apply, especially when our definition of God is that He is omnipotent and omniscient.

Let's get the facts straight. The Bible clearly prohibits homosexuality (as well as theft, fornication, etc.) To suggest that Baptists are being selective is not true. I feel certain that the Baptist will approve a similar measure to sever relations with organizations which affirm fornication and theft if that issue ever arises. Believe me, the Southern Baptists would never allow unrepentant, practicing thieves to be ordained either. Moreover, the argument that the Southern Baptists did not address other sin with the same zeal (i.e., slavery) does not mean that they are wrong to address the issue of homosexuality (this is what is called a nonsequitor). Maybe it means that Southern Baptists have learned from their prior failures.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the resolution which prohibits gays from attending Southern Baptist churches, other than the fact that the churches will not affirm them as homosexuals. Indeeed, the Church is open to all as all are in need of redemption. I an my congregation would welcom homosexuals in our church just as we would welcome anyone else. The problem with the homosexual rights movement is that they don't believe that homosexuality is a sin which requires redemption. Rather, they see those who beleive that homosexuality is wrong as narrow-minded biggots.

The Church needed take this stand to be salt in a sinful world. After all, if the Bible isn't true, and we don't need to take it seriously, we should just sleep in on Sunday.

"Let's get the facts straight. The Bible clearly prohibits homosexuality (as well as theft, fornication, etc.) To suggest that Baptists are being selective is not true."

Uh riiight. The Bible also clearly prohibits eating shellfish and pork. If the Baptists aren't being selective in their fight against sin, where are the resolutions promising to exclude churches that allow shrimp and pork at their covered dish dinners?

"After all, if the Bible isn't true, and we don't need to take it seriously, we should just sleep in on Sunday."

It all depends on the sense in which you want it to be "true," Paul. At a factual level, there is no way it can be "true." That's been established for all clear-thinkers for centuries. But it does hold many interesting and profound truths nonetheless.

Personally, I never "sleep in," but it's not because of church, believe me. {;-)

John:

Your comments prove my point about people not knowing the Bible. Shelfish, etc. were only prohibited in the Old Testament. There were a lot of rules in the Old Testament. Those rules were there for the purpose of demonstrating to ancient Jews that they were unable to be "good enough" to go to heaven as they could not keep all the rules. For this reason, they were in need of a savior, i.e., Jesus. With the arrival of the Messiah, Christ, the Bible teaches that "there is neither slave nor free, neither male nor female" and everything is good for eating, (although we should consider our weaker brothers before doing something, like eating shellfish, if it will cause him to stumble.) If you were substantially familiar with the Bible you would know this.

You say that at "a factual level" it cannot be true. Where did you get that information? Read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, among others. Lee is a former agnostic attorney and Chicago Sun Times reporter. The Bible has more corroborating documents than any other ancient text. (Do the research yourself, don't just rely on what you have heard from others).

Bottom line, as C.S. Lewis puts it, either Jesus was who He said he was or he was a crack pot. The Bible, therefore, is either of the utmost importance or not important at all. It can't be just a little important.

ECUMAN, I am NOT proof-texting as has been alledged.

Paul (above) speaks in a similar fashion as ECUMAN. There is NO mention that can be ascertained that ANY person who penned Christian scriptures was aware of homosexuality as it is presented today. That is not to say it was/did not happen or take place. Rather, there is no proof to support inserting a 19th Century word into a 1st Century document. To do so seeks to know the mind of the author. That is my point. We 21st century people can only have brief "snap shots" of the intent of the writers of those documents.

While I do not consider myself "expert," I do consider myself versed enough and learned enough to know the difference in these matters.

What I perceive here is the distinct differing of beliefs as to whether or not homosexuality is not/is sin. Those who believe homosexuality is not, do not support the action taken by the NC Baptist State Convention. Those who do, support the action taken.

While it is futile to "argue" this point, civil discussion is possible. Check out the LTTE in the N & R from last week regarding gay billboards.

I must say that I feel it is irreprehensible for supposed Christians to feel that a person cannot be homoesxual and Christian while believing that one can be a liar, thief, murder (fill in the ___) and yet be Christian. Let me state it yet again here though; I DO NOT believe that homosexuality is sin/sinful. Again, that crux of the issue.

We need to find similarities and work from those instead of working from our differences. Civil discourse/dialogue ensues from the former, not the latter.

Shalom

Well said Paul.

I might add that there are different types of laws given in the OT. Ceremonial laws (keeping yourself pure in regard to worship related matters), dietary laws for health reasons or to keep Israelites distinct from the nations that surrounded them, civil laws (boundaries, contracts, etc.) and moral laws (murder, stealing, sexual behavior,etc.). The moral laws are reaffirmed in the NT.

Of course, one might have to read the entire Bible (or at least a large portion of it) to understand those things (with the illumination from the Holy Spirit, of course). Critics of Christianity normally don't do that, but then again too few Christian do also.

Darryl:

It doesn't not matter if the WORD homosexual existed when the OT or NT was written. The meaning of words changes over time and new words can be invented to describe something. What matters is that the word that was used by the writer was understood by the readers of THAT day to be the same as what we NOW call homosexual behavior. I think it does.

Many (certainly not all) of the scholars who translate the Bible (and other ancient documents) are not concerned with theology. They are more concerned with linguistic integrity and readability of the translation. No offense to you, but I trust their judgement and expertise in this area more than yours. Do you treat all tranlations of ancient texts the same way you treat the Bible or are you sceptical of those as well?

"You say that at "a factual level" it cannot be true. Where did you get that information?"

From reading the Bible and studying the evidence found by Biblical archeologists. When there is a serious disconnect between a book and the evidence, I'll stick with the evidence for establishing facts.

"Read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, among others. Lee is a former agnostic attorney and Chicago Sun Times reporter."

Yeah, I've read some of Strobel's stuff. He's an idiot, to put it mildly.

"Bottom line, as C.S. Lewis puts it, either Jesus was who He said he was or he was a crack pot."

Actually, Lewis built what he called the "trilemma" of "Lord, Liar or Lunatic." He wasn't very well versed in "Logic," because there has never been any logical reason to assume that the Bible is any more factual than the Iliad.

The reason that the NC Baptists are dealing pointedly with the whole homosexual issue is that it is being pressed so vehemently by the gay lobbies, liberal media and radical churches. Alcoholism, adultery, bestiality and other sins are not being urgently forced upon society the way the gay agenda is. All biblically-aware Christians know that the Bible not only forbids homosexual activity, but considers it totally perverse. It is clearly NOT natural, and those who practice it are afflicted with all sorts of colon infections, not to mention STD’s and AIDS. Gays, generally, are much more promiscuous than their hetero counterparts, and can have hundreds of partners a year.

Yes, there are all kinds of gays, many very productive members of society in just about all areas of endeavor. But then, there are very upscale prostitutes; and adulterers, alcoholics, drug users, racists etc. can be found in all areas of society as well – and contribute greatly to it. This is NOT the issue. Either a mindset or activity is godly and in harmony with the way God created man, or it is not; and therefore ultimately deadly and corrupting in its affects.

Just a few responses to comments above:

There is no evidence, either in their wording or in their practice, that NC Baptists are not open to gays coming to their churches, and are committed to love them as they do other sinners; but they MUST require repentance from their gay sin to be faithful to the Scriptures.

These consistent biblical Baptists are not demagogues or bigots; they are God-pleasing Christians, who dare to resist the radical juggernaut of secularism and humanism. Most of the vitriol and bigotry is coming from those who disagree with them.

You cannot change the Truth, no matter how PC you dress up sin and depravity. Man has tried for centuries, but God will judge those who undermine the divine establishment by their ungodly and anti-Scriptural ideologies, bringing misery and death to themselves and millions of others. In Christian eyes, Ted Haggard did not just experiment with an alternate lifestyle, he fell into grievous sin through his own rebellion and faithlessness. His church correctly called it sin, and is lovingly providing counsel and recovery ministry for him. In the secular world, homosexuality is being openly touted and approved – even glorified. And because it is seen as good and positive there is no expression of it, and other perversions, that is not given tacit approval and free rein. One can only imagine our future if this trend is not reversed. Kudos to the SBC and other valiant contenders for the Faith.

Christians are called to love everyone, but not to approve thier sin, either in the Church or outside it. God’s love is wedded to Truth. There can be no other kind without deadly consequences – spiritual and physical.

All this blah, blah, blah about believing in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Allow me to remind you about the Southern Baptists' past historical support of slavery, segregation, and lynching, as well as fixing all the racist attitudes that are currently prevalent within the Southern Baptist denomination. Since the civil rights movement and subsequent federal and state civil rights legislation, I suspect attacking gays is safer and more "politically correct" these days. Some people just don't seem to be happy unless they have someone to hate.

I was thinking about the history of changes in ths nation as I drove to work this morning. For the first 80+ years of its existence, we were a slave-holding nation. Many people wanted to end that situation on moral grounds, but there were always plenty of Christians around who could find support for slavery in the Old and New Testaments, so they fought that change tooth and nail.

In the beginning, America allowed only free men who owned property to vote. Many people didn't care for that, thought that women and folks who could only rent their homes might should be able to participate in the political process. Well, there were an awful lot of Christians who looked in their Bibles and found that it says women should be silent around the men and never try to make decisions. Once again, these people did their level best for over a century to keep this bit of social progress from happening.

Of course, in both instances, these conservative forces lost their struggles. And of course, today, the religious conservatives claim that they were at the forefront of the push for change.

These items from history give me a little hope when it comes to the gay rights movement. The conservative Christian forces opposing this sensible move will very likely lose their struggle. And in about 50 years, I expect the conservatives in that day will claim that they were in the vanguard, pushing for inclusiveness and ignoring crap like the stuff the state Baptists did the other day.

So it goes...

Every denomination, including all the liberal ones, were caught up in the deeply-ingrained attitudes of racism, and have had to expunge it. Group attitudes are like the Queen Mary. It takes a while to make a big turn. Even black and minority churches all tend to have separate memberships and church services, because of social, stylistic and traditional influences. They are not racist to do so.

And racism, as such, is not defensible from the Bible, despite the passages about indentured servitude for debt and other offenses. It was the penal system of the time, and actually makes more sense than being incarcerated as less than slaves in prisons. Even if you insist on pushing the OT passages out of their temporal and social contexts, the NT is very clear indeed about being set free in Christ, etc. Most all SB’s know this and oppose racism – they have majority black congregations, for goodness sake.

Sexual perversion is in another category - totally. Most all Christians I know “hate” (dislike, desire to see it eliminated) murder, adultery, robbery, child abuse, and all the heinous sins that afflict humanity – with Biblical warrant. God is said to “hate” sin in the Scriptures, because He is altogether righteous and holy. Regardless of the SBC’s history (we all have one, with all its skeletons and open pages), they remain perfectly correct and laudable for opposing something for which there is clear Biblical warrant for opposing. This does not mean that they hate persons, but that they reject and oppose a sinful practice; as they should, and do, other things qualified as sin in Scripture.

Trying to deflect the natural and biblical evidence against perverse sexuality by pointing out human flaws, especially group failures, is a straw man. Regardless of the window dressing of social accomplishment, the actual sex acts of gays are nowhere near normal or acceptable, and have all kinds of detrimental side effects and social ramifications, as does fornication and adultery. God does not prohibit such things in order to spoil our fun, rather He does it to preserve us and provide for our true happiness. True biblical Christians know this, and are compelledby the Word of God, as salt and light, to oppose deviations from God’s moral law, both in themselves, in the Church and in God’s world (society).

"Regardless of the window dressing of social accomplishment, the actual sex acts of gays are nowhere near normal or acceptable, and have all kinds of detrimental side effects and social ramifications, as does fornication and adultery."

So I guess we can now expect the Baptists to start excluding all people who engage in any sex at all outside of a proper Christian marriage... if they want to be "true Biblical Christians." Would you have any problem with this, Nikos?

If homosexuality is such a sin, then why did your god create over 450 species of animals that engage in homosexual sex on a regular basis? Homosexuality is perfectly natural.

Rebel,

Would you please put your dog away, and explain to me what he's so fixated on my leg.

God did not create man to be like dogs and beetles and fish, etc. He is created in the image and likeness of God, and the marriage relationship is dseigned to be totally fulfilling in a covenant relationship of one man and one woman. Whatever the animals do is certainly not keeping them from copulating in such a manner as to perpetuate their species. The problem with sex today in general is that people are behaving like animals - and are paying dearly for it.

It is NOT a matter of excluding anyone; it is a matter of not approving sinful behavior that is known. When someone in a biblically aware church openly sins: fornication, robbery, perverted sex, racist practices, etc, they must give accoount and either turn from their sin or be disciplined so as to be restored to fellowship. If someone in a business embezzles funds and are found out, they must either repay it forthwith or be disciplined by the law. right? Most any group has standards and some form of discipline.

The fact is that you just don't like anyone inhibiting your practice of various kinds of sin, so you feel inclined to condemn and berate Christians for their choice to resist and prevent the destructive effects of unrighteousness. What ever happened to your vaunted "right to choose" thing anyway. If you don't like the SBC's policy, then don't go to one of their churches. Go to an ECUSA or UCC church where you can do just about anything now except believe the Bible and pledge allegiance to the flag.

Nikos and ECUman;
You boys really have some issues with gayness that everybody else on this blog picked up on a while back. Methinks you boys doth protest a bit TOO much.

Pretending both you and your god hate gays doesn't make you appear heterosexual. Au contraire, mes freres- your behavior mirrors The Rev. Haggard's, and I'd say nobody else here is fooled.

Alice, thanks for that word. I am generally a bit skeptical of those people who find a single cause to really "beat down." I am reminded of Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard in these instances.

Shalom

What’s the matter, dudes; run out of cogent arguments? Last time I looked - homosexuals in the church - was the subject of this blog entry. And neither I nor ECUMAN brought it up. I guess when folks can’t supply any more sound arguments they resort to ad hominem nonsense. Sodomy can’t really be defended, so I suppose its advocates have to trash whole denominations and anyyone who points out its destructiveness and absurdity. Does hating murder mean that you’re automatically a closet murderer? Or does hating child molestation mean that you are a secret pedophile? I sure hope not!

Let’s try this again. We WERE discussing the right and justification of the SBC to debate and whether openly practicing gays (or pedophiles, prostitutes, extortionists, murderers, adulterers) would be welcomed into the membership of local churches. I have no doubt that biblically committed SBC churches by and large restrict membership along any of these lines; none of which PRACTICES, or other sins, has ANY place in a godly assembly of forgiven sinners. But I also have no doubt that they welcome sinners into their services AS SINNERS who must respond to the truth of God’s Word and repent – turn from their death-ridden ways toward Jeuss Christ – the Way, the Truth and the Life. That’s not hate; that’s love, mercy and redemption.

You guys may not like the Truth – you may even abhor and despise it; but it stands nevertheless. God so loved the (sinful) world that He sent His divine and eternal Son to redeem sinners, not to excuse and accept their sin. As biblical Christians the SBC et al. have NO CHOICE but to reject the practice, but invite the sinner find forgiveness and restoration.

I believe this is the subject at hand. I have addressed it, and some of you have given your own well-penned counter arguments; unfortunately others have descended into the groundless illogic of ad hominem diatribe.

Uh oh- looks like I may have hit a sore nerve with somebody.
What's that I smell? Ick. It smells like somebody opened and old musty closet which had a few
mothballs inside.
It's " Eau de Nikos"

Not worthy of a reply! So much for intelligence and civility.

Nikos, I find it ironic that John 3.16 is posted. So, as a gay man having professes Jesus the Christ as Lord AND Savior of my life I believe I had done all that scripture states.

Again, the crux of the dialogue now is between those who believe that homosexuality is not/is sin/sinful.

When people have presented evidence to support the belief that homosexuality is not sinful; those posts/people have been rebuffed. Yet, when those same people rebuff those who believe that homosexuality is sinful; that group becomes testy.

I suggest that if one group cannot take the same "rebuffing" that they not initiate said "rebuffing." If people want to be respected for what they post, then the same courteousy should be extended. Disagreement is fine as long as it is done in an agreeable fashion.

And trust me Nikos and ECUMAN, I know pretty much the line of thinking/belief that each of you present as I too once had a simliar belief. Then one day, after many years of prayer, searching, seeking God's deliverance; God spoke to me in a still and small, yet loud and boisterious voice. Since that day (10/12/1996) I have never been the same! I thank God that I finally listened and not just heard what God was saying to me. What a life changing day that was. I only wish that more people would open up their ears and hearts to the voice of God speaking to him/her. What a much more wonderful world it would be if each of us not only listened, but also HEARD what God was saying.

Shalom

Gee, Nikos- saying I think you're protesting TOO much and that such behavior on your part mirrors that of Rev. Crouch and Rev. Haggard prior to being outed is not " intelligent" and " an ad hominem attack"?
Oh my. You DO have issues.
That's okay. God will still love you even after you come to terms with who you are- so long as you ask forgiveness for judging others and calling them sinful.

Much as I want to read all the comments before responding, I have to address Darryl who wrote:

"There is NO mention that can be ascertained that ANY person who penned Christian scriptures was aware of homosexuality as it is presented today. That is not to say it was/did not happen or take place. Rather, there is no proof to support inserting a 19th Century word into a 1st Century document. To do so seeks to know the mind of the author"

You can't have it both ways, Darryl. If you claim that homosexuality is genetic or that homosexuals are "born that way," then homosexuality "as we know it today" must have existed also in the first century AD, just like cancer and other disorders. And if the condition existed, Paul undoubtedly knew about it. Someone educated enough to have quoted Greek poets in Athens (see Acts 17) would surely have been familiar with Plato's Symposium, which glorifies homosexuality. In a speech by Aristophanes, one of the characters, he mentions men "born to be a lover of boys or the willing mate of a man," and describes them as "they who continue together throughout life."
On the other hand, if the homosexual orientation only came into existence in the 19th century, there are no grounds for claiming that homosexual orientation is natural to homosexuals or that homosexual acts were anuthing other than the perversion of the universal heterosexuality we are all born with since the beginning of humanity.
But even if the ancient world had no awareness of homosexuality as an orientation, you would still have to show why the orientation excused the act, which in Scripture is universally condemned.
As for accurate translation,one of the words translated "homosexuals" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, "arsenokoites," is probably a conflation of the Septuagint (Greek) translation of Leviticus 20:13, where the Hebrew for "lie as with a woman" is translated "arsenon koites". Such compounding was common in ancient Greek, as it is in languages like German today.
Darryl also wrote:
"I must say that I feel it is irreprehensible for supposed Christians to feel that a person cannot be homoesxual and Christian while believing that one can be a liar, thief, murder (fill in the ___) and yet be Christian."

Where on earth did you get the idea that anybody, "supposed Christian" or not, believes this? Several commentors on this very thread have stated the exact opposite. Go back and read them again.

John wrote:

"Uh riiight. The Bible also clearly prohibits eating shellfish and pork. If the Baptists aren't being selective in their fight against sin, where are the resolutions promising to exclude churches that allow shrimp and pork at their covered dish dinners?"

As others have pointed out, these laws have been abrogated in the New Testament, where anything might be eaten without sin, so long as eating it does not make your brother falter in his faith. The purity laws related to the sacrifices, which have been fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ for sins "once for all." Since there are no more sacrifices, there are no more laws dealing with sacrificial purity or uncleanness. Homosexuality, however, is not in this category, since it is condemned in the New Testament also.
Plus, John's argument cuts borth ways. Is he prepared to say that because we can eat shellfish without sin, we can also have sex with animals (Lev. 18:23), burn our children to death as sacrifices (Lev. 18:21) or hate our neighbors (Lev. 19:18)without sin? I doubt that John would say there's nothing wrong with those actions.

John wrote that he got his conviction of Biblical falsity
"From reading the Bible and studying the evidence found by Biblical archeologists. When there is a serious disconnect between a book and the evidence, I'll stick with the evidence for establishing facts."

It's interesting how often further discoveries of "Biblical archaeology" actually confirm the Bible's accuracy rather than discredit it. For example, "modern" critics 150 years ago dismissed the Hittites as mythological, until an archaeologist embarrassed them by digging up one of their cities. Several terms used by Luke to refer to city officials were thought to be erroneous until archaeologists found inscriptions showing Luke to be correct. And just recently, a stone inscription was found referring to the "house of David," sending all the skeptics who denied that David had ever lived back to the drawing board. This happens with a regularity embarrassing to skeptics anbd doubters. It's dangerous being a denier of the Bible; you never know when some humiliating "fact" will be dug out of the sand and refute your pet theories.
John then demonstrates his superior charity by commenting:

"Yeah, I've read some of Strobel's stuff. He's an idiot, to put it mildly."

Stunning refutation, there, John. Worthy of the lone voice of reason on the board.

John finally comments:" there has never been any logical reason to assume that the Bible is any more factual than the Iliad."

I refer the open-minded reader to the works of Norman Geisler, especially the Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Randall Price's The Stones Cry Out: What Archaeology Reveals About the Truth of the Bible, and many other books for an abundance of such reasons. But briefly, all that is needed to make Lewis' argument logically powerful is to treat the Gospels as you would any other ancient writing which claims to be eyewitness history: evaluate it as such. Would John consider his objection equally valid if it read "there has never been any logical reason to assume the Bible is any more factual than Thucydides' Pelopponnesian War"?

"This happens with a regularity embarrassing to skeptics anbd doubters. It's dangerous being a denier of the Bible; you never know when some humiliating "fact" will be dug out of the sand and refute your pet theories."

Perhaps you would find it of interest to find that archeology in Egypt has found no hint of the existence of a massive slave population as claimed in Exodus, nor of a devastating economic death that the story of Exodus surely must have required. Jericho was found, but no sign of any wall exists on the site. I would suggest that you read "The View from Nebo" to get a more up to date and balanced view of what archeology is finding these days.

"I refer the open-minded reader to the works of Norman Geisler, especially the Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Josh McDowell's New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Randall Price's The Stones Cry Out: What Archaeology Reveals About the Truth of the Bible, and many other books for an abundance of such reasons."

I've read stuff by McDowell and Geisler. All of the authors who write in this genre are similar in that they assume the Bible is true as their starting point, then pick their evidence and spin the data to fit their pre-conceived answers. This is not the way science works. I stand by my original statement that there is never any reason to assume any book is accurate without OBJECTIVELY examining surrounding evidence.

"But briefly, all that is needed to make Lewis' argument logically powerful is to treat the Gospels as you would any other ancient writing which claims to be eyewitness history: evaluate it as such."

I note that only John's Gospel makes the explicit claim of being from an actual eye witness. And considering that its authorship is most likely 50 to 60 years after the execution of Jesus, one must take that claim with a major grain of salt.

Steve, check my post again before commenting as you did.

Why should those not believing as you read evidence to support your view when you continually refuse to deal with ANY evidence that refutes what you believe? That is unequovically absurd.

Again, the homosexuality issue goes back to one central issue; the belief that homosexuality is not/is sin/sinful.

Each person will have to be fully persuaded in his/her OWN mind. I only hope that it does not take events such as my own for others to be convinced.

Shalom

John shares his typically slanted view of history:
"For the first 80+ years of its existence, we were a slave-holding nation. Many people wanted to end that situation on moral grounds, but there were always plenty of Christians around who could find support for slavery in the Old and New Testaments, so they fought that change tooth and nail."

Actually, Christians fought against slavery tooth and nail, too. William Wilberforce, a devout evangelical, spent his political career getting slavery outlawed in England; Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, which did more than any other writing to point out the horrors of slavery, is saturated with Biblical quotations and allusions. The abolitionist movement in general was Christian led and Christian motivated. The point nobody mentions is this: where are all the people now who think the Bible supports slavery? There aren't any! So we learned something. Correct Bible interpretation will always win out eventually over the cultural and economic forces that oppose it, though it may take time. I am confident that the correct understanding of homosexuality as an abomination before God will survive the current fashionable attacks against that truth as well. Remember, people don't always reach their conclusions strictly by the Bible without any other influences. The world would be a better place if they did, but we all grow up in a particular culture with its unspoken assumptions and economic and social forces molding people's opinions and pressuring people to conform to them in hundreds of ways, both subtle and overt. So the southern defenders of slavery were influenced by their regional culture, its pride and dependence on the slave trade, and their racism, which blinded them both to the brutality of slavery and the Biblical principles against it. In short, religion was not the only thing influencing their views, and cannot bear the entire burden of blame, especially since slavery's opponents were moved by the same religion. But all we hear from the atheist camp is "Christians supported slavery." I wonder, John, if you found literature by southern atheists supporting slavery, whether you would say "of course, there were those atheists always opposing progress"?

John goes on: "In the beginning, America allowed only free men who owned property to vote. Many people didn't care for that, thought that women and folks who could only rent their homes might should be able to participate in the political process."

Yes, and they took those verses out of context, as atheists do as well, with the result that their ideas were eventually rejected by society. The restriction of the vote to property-owning males was also not exclusively motivated by religion. Much of its support came from enlightenment conviction that only property owners would be responsible enough to be entrusted with the vote.
As with slavery, many sufferagettes were biblically motivated, which we never hear about. Somehow the feminists never get around to mentioning that they all opposed abortion, too, except for Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who believed in eugenics and weeding out the genetically inferior.

John again: "Once again, these people did their level best for over a century to keep this bit of social progress from happening."

Again implying that all Christians were on the side of reaction and blocking progress, while only secularists strode heroically into the future defending social justice. This view is just as unbalanced and ideologically blind as any of the views John criticizes.

John goes on: "Of course, in both instances, these conservative forces lost their struggles."

Because other Christian conservatives won those struggles.

And finally: " And of course, today, the religious conservatives claim that they were at the forefront of the push for change"

Considering the destructive changes of the last forty years or so, I for one am proudly on the side of reaction and turning back the clock to a time when students were not indoctrinated into godless relativism and as an expression of the resulting alienation from reality began shooting up their classrooms or themselves. But that's me, a stagnant progress-blocker stubbornly standing in the way of more progress toward a promiscuous, violent, murderous society where everyone makes up whatever rules please them.

John writes: "I note that only John's Gospel makes the explicit claim of being from an actual eye witness."

Not so, John. Peter wrote: "for we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty...we ourselves heard the this very voice borne from heaven , for we were with him on the holy mountain [of the transfiguration]". 2 Pet. 1:16, 18. And Luke testifies at the beginning of his gospel that "many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning have delivered them up to us," Luke 1:1,2; and he went on to say that "having followed all things closely for some time past," he would do the same, "so that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught," 1:4.

Thanks for the book tip, though; I'll look into it.
John wrote:
Perhaps you would find it of interest to find that archeology in Egypt has found no hint of the existence of a massive slave population as claimed in Exodus, nor of a devastating economic death that the story of Exodus surely must have required."

If so (and following your advice, I'm going to examine the evidence before I make up my mind),that's probably because the pharaohs never commissioned expensive, permanent monuments to advertise their failures.

John: "I've read stuff by McDowell and Geisler. All of the authors who write in this genre are similar in that they assume the Bible is true as their starting point, then pick their evidence and spin the data to fit their pre-conceived answers."

I don't see how what you've posted is any different, except that you assume the Bible is false. And you forget that many defenders of the faith started out as atheists just as determined to refute Christianity as you are, and it was the very evidence you claim none of us looks at which convinced them that Christianity is true. Lee Strobel is one; another is John Robinson, whose book "Who Moved the Stone" remains an excellent defense of the resurrection.

John: "This is not the way science works. I stand by my original statement that there is never any reason to assume any book is accurate without OBJECTIVELY examining surrounding evidence."

I agree completely. But you assume in your own prejudice that nobody can OBJECTIVELY examine surrounding evidence" and end up a Bible-believing Christian. Well, many people do; I'm one of them. When I first believed, I didn't even own a Bible, much less assume its truth from the beginning. Sorry if that challenges your neat characterization of Bible-believers as ignorant bozos, but hey...evidence can't be ignored just because it upsets our preconceived notions, right?

And considering that its authorship is most likely 50 to 60 years after the execution of Jesus, one must take that claim with a major grain of salt

Darryl wrote: "Nikos, I find it ironic that John 3.16 is posted. So, as a gay man having professes Jesus the Christ as Lord AND Savior of my life I believe I had done all that scripture states"

Ironically, brother Darryl, I was once where you are, and thought I could act on my gay orientation and still claim that the God to whom such acts were an abomination was my Lord. But I would encourage you in the Lord to prayerfully consider some other scriptures, which I point out not to judge, but as one who was once under the same illlusion:
"Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" Luke 6:46
"If you love me, keep my commandments," John 14:15
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law", Rom. 8:7.
I am aware that as I judge others, so I will be judged; and I am far from being perfect, or even adequate, in obedience. But this I do know; God will never lead someone into a lifestyle that contradicts His word. I know well the sense of liberation, of a heavy weight being lifted off, that follows "coming out." But don't be fooled. Such a feeling is not from God. The pleasures of sin are but for a season; after them comes misery and remorse. The more you justify your sin, the harder it is for you to leave it. This is the judgment of God, who abandoned those who refused to honor Him to their base and unnatural lusts, as stated in Romans 1:27. I urge you to reconsider your life and find a group of former gays who can help you, and a wise, sweet and understanding woman who will show you, as my wife showed me, the solid and abiding joys of normality.

"Again implying that all Christians were on the side of reaction and blocking progress, while only secularists strode heroically into the future defending social justice."
I hope I did not do that, Steve. When I say that there were Christians who supported slavery, that doesn't imply that ALL Christians did. Merely the ones who take the Bible seriously and literally. And yes... for a long time, it was only the secular folks and a small number of progressive religious folks (Quakers, Universalists and a few other groups) who were working for progress against the majority.

That's the record of history, Steve.

Everyone who has criticized the Baptists for believing that homosexual acts are sinful should consider this: What's the alternative? Aren't Christians frequently criticized for hypocrisy? And wouldn't it be hypocritical if they treated homosexuality as legitimate to gain your approval if they really believed it to be sinful? But we don't want that, you say; we want them to accept our belief that homosexual acts between consenting adults are not sinful. So if you're telling yourself this right now, aren't you just as guilty (if that is the right word) of wanting them to adopt your moral standards as they are of wanting you to adopt theirs? So how are you different from them? And if you criticize them for doing what you yourselves are doing, who is the hypocrite here? They are acting according to their principles; you are acting against yours (namely, the implied, if not stated, principle that everyone is entitled to hold and act upon their own morality unless prohibited by secular law).

John wrote:
"When I say that there were Christians who supported slavery, that doesn't imply that ALL Christians did. Merely the ones who take the Bible seriously and literally. And yes... for a long time, it was only the secular folks and a small number of progressive religious folks (Quakers, Universalists and a few other groups) who were working for progress against the majority. "

I'm sure Harriet Beecher Stowe would have been amazed to learn that she didn't "take the Bible sriously or literally." Not to mention William Lloyd Garrison. But in John's oddly skewed "historical record," only liberals and those who claimed to believe the Bible but didn't "take it seriously" are allowed to be the good guys.