Lyn Robbins is a lawyer from Forth Worth, Texas. A Baylor alum, Robbins is an Adjunct Professor of Law at Baylor Law School. Robbins is also a member of Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth where he serves as church attorney. He recently made the trip to Nashville to meet with the Southern Baptist Convention’s Executive Committee as the representative from Broadway’s denominational relation’s committee.
Robbins has written a lengthy blog post about meeting with the SBC’s Executive Committee and the homosexuality debate.
Robbins begins with a disclaimer:
This blog is not written as a representative of Broadway. It is my own. Please do not complain to the church, the pastor, or anybody but me when you don’t like what I write. …
On whether Broadway is in “friendly cooperation” per the SBC’s Constitution, Robbins writes:
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. In Broadway’s case, the charge against it apparently is Broadway’s choice not to exclude homosexuals from membership in the church. Some Baptists believe that the extension of church membership - or the choice not to withdraw it - is such a prohibited “act.” I disagree. Others believe that allowing homosexual members to serve on committees within the church is an affirming act. Broadway hopes all of its members will serve on committees, so to me, committee service is just that - service - and not a leadership role that affirms homosexual behavior.
In short, at Broadway, church membership is for those baptized by immersion who profess Christ as Lord and choose to join Broadway in its following of Christ. Broadway has never taken the position that the church, in extending membership to any person, is affirming all of that person’s behavior - no matter what that behavior is. There are Baptists who disagree with that conclusion.
Robbins continues his post by addressing various arguments relating to homosexuality. Read that here.
Robbins concludes with this:
I am neither unsure of where I come down on the “Is it sin?” question nor ashamed of my position, but I choose not to discuss my personal convictions right now. I am simply making a different point here. In light of the discussion my church is having with the SBC, I am today more concerned with the point that there can be a reasonable debate on the issue between two sides who both recognize the authority of scripture. We have to admit that we could be wrong. We have to respect the one with whom we disagree.
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?
I know many of you think that scripture is absolutely clear on this point. I know many others of you think that the nature of God makes the decision on this question easy. I hope you will both respect the other. I hope the church can find a place for both of you. I hope that we can keep this debate from hindering us from the important work that God has for us as a church.
I have several gay friends. I hope they understand that they can have Christian friends who believe that their behavior is wrong but who love them anyway.
There is a compelling argument that says that churches have to draw the line, that when the church recognizes something as sin, it must confront the sin and deny membership to the one openly practicing that sin. The argument goes something like this: “If a car thief wanted to join the church and proclaimed that he was going to continue to steal cars, you wouldn’t let him join your church.” In answer to that, all I can say is that it is apples and oranges. Nobody makes a sincere argument that thieving is not condemned by scripture, so there is no real attempt to claim that the car thief is reasonably acting within the will of God when he continues to steal. Perhaps more important, any student of rhetoric and debate knows that the foolish extreme can always be argued as a counter to a basic point. The homosexuality debate is real, and there are real Christians with real love of scripture on both sides of it. Some of them disagree with me.
A church like mine that celebrates diversity has to be big enough for both sides. You cannot be “diverse” only in a politically correct sense of including oppressed minorities; you must also be diverse in the sense of welcoming the views of those on both sides of touchy debates. I think that is proper. I am glad my church does not take a position that affirms, approves, or endorses the behavior. I am also glad my church does not take a position that cuts off membership for those who accept the behavior.
My church is big enough for both sides.
One big question for Southern Baptists, particularly members of the Executive Committee, is - How should the 1993 anti-gay amendment to the SBC Constitution be interpreted? What steps must a church take to “affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior” ? How did the messengers in 1993 intend for their amendment to be interpreted and applied?
Robbins argues that such steps “would include things like open statements of affirmation of homosexual behavior or publications of such statements.” He does not believe that a Southern Baptist church who grants church membership and committee positions to openly gay men and lesbians is in violation of Article III of the SBC Constitution.
But, I’m not so sure that a majority of the messengers to the 1993 Southern Baptist Convention nor the upcoming 2009 Southern Baptist Convention would agree with his interpretation of their Constitution.
Who knows. I do know though that Southern Baptist bloggers have been extremely quiet on this recent postponement decision by their Executive Committee. How about a reaction, fellas?
Related posts:
- SBC Exec Committee Delays Decision On Broadway Baptist Check out the latest story on Broadway Baptist Church courtesy...
- Broadway Baptist Ousted From SBC Just an hour or two ago, Southern Baptist messengers voted...
- Why Broadway? Who’s Next? I recently wrote about the decision of Southern Baptist messengers...
- The Broadway Baptist Church Controversy: Finale The ongoing Controversy at Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth...
- More Drama & Division At Broadway Baptist Church ***This is an UPDATED Version**** Back in November, Broadway Baptist...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
BDW,
I tend to agree with you that Lyn may be confusing legal interpretation of a document with the sentiments and values of a living organism (the SBC in session). Based on my interpretation of the Ex Committee of the SBC proceedings, I believe they and probably the body at large have a much narrower view than Lyn’s understanding.
The issue of membership and leadership vary from church to church. I believe there are pro-active healthy steps Broadway can take to address the issue and stay in friendly cooperation, but trying to stand on a technical interpretation of a constitution would not be firm footing in my book.
I am praying for all concerned, but it is critical that as Baptists we handle this matter in a way that promotes cooperation and understanding. We cannot afford a punitive action at this point because of the negative ramifications both in the public and between us as believers.
David Lowrie
I’m glad to react:
We cannot afford not to have a punitive action at this point because of the negative ramifications both in the public and between us as believers.
Lynn,
My guess is that I’m much older than you–my values may be a little stricter–approx. 30 years ago in NC ,at the request of the pastor and deacons ,I wrote a letter to the General Board,local board represenative and the local newspaper,concerning the liberal policies of a few Baptist churches
in NC–our view is that if you attend chuech long enough then you sin may become approved–like the sin of the week thing–I felt then that the open embrace of homosexuality is wrong and still do–I love the sinner but hate the sin–slowly we have come to absorb sinners of all
natures into the church–if this sin is an abomination to God–how can one continue to practice it.
Maybe I’m old fashioned but I think once we let the gate down,then we open the gates to all sins for approval at some point.
I personally would not want any sinner to feel unwelcome in my church–but realizing that without repentance he can’t become a member.
I can’t be admitted to the bar as an attorney until I meet certain requirements–same for the church–being aborn again Christian is first–meaning that you have put off the old and started afresh with Jesus–we won’t be perfect but we can’t cling to the old–repentance is turning from the old to the new–doesn’t work half way.
The old country song stated it pretty well–”if you don’t stand for something-you’ll fall for anything”.
Dwight Crainshaw