I recently wrote about the decision of Southern Baptist messengers to oust Broadway Baptist Church from the Southern Baptist Convention. Messengers ended a 125-year relationship between Broadway and the SBC in a matter of 30 seconds with no discussion.
So, why did the SBC’s Executive Committee recommend that the SBC and Broadway end their historic relationship? According to Stephen Wilson, a member of the Executive Committee, Broadway was ousted because their membership role includes homosexuals who are unrepentant. See Baptist Press. Here’s Wilson:
“If churches are ministering to homosexuals, they are doing nothing more than what our own convention’s task force has asked us to do,” Wilson told Baptist Press. “But in Broadway’s case … the church was in effect saying that it was OK to have members who are open homosexuals.”
According to Baptist Press, Broadway Baptist has approximately five open homosexual members. As previously mentioned, Broadway maintains that it has never taken an action to affirm or endorse homosexual behavior.
According to Bob Allen of the Associated Baptist Press, this vote marks the first time that the Southern Baptist Convention has ousted a church simply because SBC leaders PERCEIVE that the congregation is in violation of Article III of the SBC Constitution which prohibits affiliation with welcoming and affirming congregations.
The SBC changed its constitution in 1993 to exclude churches that are welcoming and affirming of gays. Previously the amendment was interpreted to apply only to churches that take some formal action, like ordaining or licensing a gay minister or conducting a ceremony to bless a same-sex union…
So, now that Broadway is gone, who is next on the SBC hit list?
I noted in a comment earlier that there are likely many many SBC congregations have an openly gay member. In fact, it was revealed in April 2008 that one large Southern Baptist congregation - North Phoenix Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona - has at least one dozen openly gay members. Here’s North Phoenix’s pastor, Dan Yeary in an interview with ABP from April 2008:
The pastor is aware of a dozen or more gays who are members of North Phoenix Baptist. Yeary said he has told them they are welcome, but that he can’t “encourage their lifestyle.”
Back in April 2008, I asked in a blog post:
One can only wonder…will the same Southern Baptists who were hollering for Broadway Baptist Church of Fort Worth to be ousted from the SBC now holler for the 7,000 member North Phoenix to be ousted? After all, North Phoenix like Broadway has gay members.
Now that Broadway is out of the SBC, Charlie Johnson - Broadway’s former interim pastor - poses a similar question:
Every Southern Baptist church of any size has homosexual members. These friends pray with us, sing with us, give with us, serve with us, and take the Body and Blood of Christ at the table of the Lord with us. Will the test imposed upon Broadway by the denomination now be required of all the churches?
Good question. Again I ask, who’s next?
It’s worth noting that North Phoenix Baptist Church is listed as the #1 giver to the Cooperative Program of the Arizona Southern Baptist Convention during the first quarter of 2009.
North Phoenix is a regular top giver to the Cooperative Program.
Related posts:
- ABP Lands Interview with John McCain’s Pastor Greg Warner of the Associated Baptist Press has landed an...
- Broadway Baptist Ousted From SBC Just an hour or two ago, Southern Baptist messengers voted...
- SBC Exec Committee Delays Decision On Broadway Baptist Check out the latest story on Broadway Baptist Church courtesy...
- Broadway & the SBC: The Church Attorney’s Perspective Lyn Robbins is a lawyer from Forth Worth, Texas. A...
- Baptist Press, Broadway Baptist & Jihad Baptist Press, the PR arm of the Southern Baptist Convention,...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
I think Bob Allen has hit the nail on the head with the comments about this being the first time the rule has been used based on perception. It seems to be a mighty slippery path to set foot upon, what if this was applied to all congregational discipline?
Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts on the convention, I’ve been enjoying them.
“Every Southern Baptist church of any size has homosexual members. These friends pray with us, sing with us, give with us, serve with us, and take the Body and Blood of Christ at the table of the Lord with us. Will the test imposed upon Broadway by the denomination now be required of all the churches?”
I’m wondering if Charlie Johnson believes there is any role for church discipline in regard to sexual ethics? This is the crux of the issue that seems to be completely missed by certain bloggers.
R. Grannemann,
Fair point on the church discipline. But where does it stop? With divorced people (50% of Evangelical Christians?) Liars (probably 100% of Evangelical Christians)? I think that homosexuality is outside the created order of God and is a result of the fallen world. Church discipline is for restoration. Unfortunately, I think when we think of it today, it is more to keep a “pure church.”
Ray,
There is an issue with how a denomination attempts to “enforce” discipline, and how well it can adequately/justly do it. But the attitude of some bloggers seems to be the SBC was simply wrong without adequately analyzing the larger issue prompting the action.
The perception that this was a cut and dried decision made in haste, in a 30 second period of time is a false one. The SBC Executive Committee and leaders of Broadway have been discussing the issue ever since the motion was made at the convention in Indianapolis last year. Nor does it appear that the church itself “didn’t do anything” to demonstrate that they affirmed homosexuality with regard to the members of its congregation known to be involved in homosexual relationships. Two of them, according to reports, were members of leadership committees and continued to remain there after the church became aware of their involvement in a homosexual relationship.
The purpose of church discipline, at least according to the scripture, is spiritual growth and restoration when a member is “caught in a sin” as Paul says in Galatians 6:1. Those who are spiritual are to restore him “gently,” and also to be careful not to be tempted by sin themselves. It appears, from media reports at least, that the SBC made every effort to move toward restoration in this particular case, and what they were asking, again according to the media reports, was not out of line with scriptural requirements or with their own bylaws. The convention, as a denominational body, does have a right to determine parameters of cooperation.
It is not a matter of “who is next?” Nor is Broadway the first Baptist church to be disfellowshipped from a denominational group for actions perceived as endorsing or approving of sinful behavior. The BGCT disfellowshipped University Baptist Church of Austin, Texas about ten or eleven years ago for exactly the same reason. The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship cut off funds from the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America for the perception that they were “gay friendly.” This is nothing new, nor is it earth shattering. Baptists believe, and follow, the scriptures in matters of conscience. This is simply an assertion of that practice.
No. That’s not correct, Lee.
Bob Allen wrote that this was the FIRST time that the SB had ousted a church simply because SB leaders PERCEIVE that the congregation is in violation of Article III. Later in the article, Allen states that the amendment to the Constitution regarding the welcoming and affirming of gays was interpreted to apply ONLY to church that take some formal action. The historical examples listed include the ordaining or licensing of a gay minister or conducting a ceremony to bless a same-sex union, etc.
As noted in the post, Broadway maintains that it has not taken any such formal action.
However, UBC in Austin has never denied that they are a welcoming and affirming congregation. The primary reason that they were booted from their local association and then the BGCT was because they ordained a gay man as a deacon in 1994. That’s a formal action. We’re not talking about perception. The CBF cut off funds from the BPFNA not for the PERCEPTION that they were gay friendly. The BPFNA is indeed a Welcoming and Affirming organization. Many years ago they took formal action to become an organization that is inclusive of gays and lesbians.
There really is no debate here. On the issue of Article III, the standard has changed from Formal Action to Perception. Who’s Next is a relevant question.
Consistency would demand that the SBC cut ties with a host of congregations including John McCain’s church out in Phoenix.
To be consistent, the SBC needs to amend Article III to say that a church must have a discipline process and must use it against all sin or at least all sexual sin that is known (open) within the congregation. Then not only North Phoenix, but many mega-churces would be candidates for expulsion, including all that have allowed sexual abusers and pedophiles to remain on their payroll. And all of those who’s pastors lust for power or money. Gee, maybe more than half the churches?
The ABP perspective represented by Bob Allen says that this is the first time a church has been dismissed because it was perceived that the church was in violation of the bylaws. He’s certainly entitled to his opinion. But the fact of the matter is that the church asked the executive committee to point out where it was in violation, and according to several media sources, they did, and offered the church a resolution. I’ve gathered from what I read that the crux of the matter was that there were two openly gay members serving on committees, and when the church discovered that they were openly gay, they did not take steps to enforce church discipline.
This is not the first time this issue has involved Broadway Baptist Church, either. The fact that Van Cliburn was a member of the church, and their pianist, was a subject of discussion when I was in seminary, back in the late 80’s.
Actually, I think it was probably the highly publicized directory issue in 2007 that led to the motion being made at the convention. I’ve been amazed that so much information about the sexual orientation of individual church members at Broadway has been made available, but apparently, among the several hundred church members who departed in the wake of the directory controversy, there are some who have been publicly revealing all kinds of information about what the church leadership has done to affirm the homosexual lifestyle. Apparently, the executive committee chose to ignore all of that, and stuck to what information the official spokespersons for the church provided them.
The SBC executive committee has likely discovered the inherent difficulties of working through the enforcement of a bylaw that singles out one sin over other sins as a test of denominational fellowship. Whether that results in any changes in the way this one is applied in the future, or whether other things are added to the list of tests of fellowship remains to be seen.
A national organization like the SBC is only going to deal with high profile cases. They don’t have time to do otherwise. Broadway was high profile because the directory issue was in the news, SWBTS professors were church members, it was a historic Fort Worth church, Cecil Sherman was once the pastor, Brett Younger couldn’t unequivocally say homosexual behavior was unscriptural. All this did make it hard for the SBC to ignore if it was going to stay true to its principles. Did the Executive Committee vote on perception … well they weren’t going to put off acting another year (especially since Broadway had stopped sending representatives to talk to them).
Who’s next? Maybe churches with women pastors. It will be interesting to see.
My question is, why are you so concerned about the SBC?
Why do you care? Duh! They are conservative.
Historians who write/publish on Baptists tend to stay interested in what the largest Baptist organization in the world is up to….
BDW: Given their behavior over the last several years, perhaps you should say “the largest allegedly Baptist organization”.
Lee: … the crux of the matter was that there were two openly gay members serving on committees, and when the church discovered that they were openly gay, they did not take steps to enforce church discipline.
bapticus hereticus: it makes my head hurt trying to keep up. so it’s now about church discipline? won’t that capture many churches (read conservative) other than Broadway and for a number of issues, as well?
and yes, Broadway does affirm, approve, or endorse … the involvement of homosexuals in its processes, given its behavior, but that does NOT mean that it affirms, approves, or endorses homosexual behavior.
it is understandable that both parties have argued as they have, given the ambiguity of the language concerning “affirm, approve, and endorse.” SBC opts for a broader, more informal interpretation, and BBC opts for a more technical, formal conceptualization. Before a relationship is destroyed, however, might it be prudent to clarify the language on which the relationship is thought to exist?
SBC acted prematurely and petulantly.