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.

Who’s next? Maybe churches with women pastors. It will be interesting to see.

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.

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.

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.

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.