That’s how Sam Hodges of the Dallas Morning News described the recent decision of Royal Lane Baptist Church to publicly welcome and affirm all individuals regardless of sexual orientation:
A church, like a person, can come out of the closet. And that’s what Royal Lane Baptist did recently.
The 500-member church in North Dallas has for years quietly welcomed gays and lesbians, even ordaining some as deacons. Last month, risking conflict with the Baptist General Convention of Texas, a majority of deacons voted to change Royal Lane’s Web site to reflect the church’s welcome to and affirmation of gays and lesbians.
“In effect, this is a collective coming out about who we are and have been for a long time,” said Ruth May, vice chair of the deacons.
The Web site now includes the line: “We are a vibrant mosaic of varied racial identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and denominational backgrounds.”
The Rev. David Matthews, the church’s pastor, emphasized that members had not voted to change Royal Lane’s mission statement or bylaws, which do not address homosexuality. But he agreed that the revised Web site is a public statement that the church welcomes gays and lesbians and does not think they need to remain celibate or try to change their sexual orientation.
“There were a handful [of deacons] who voted against it, indicating that they were not voting against gay members of the church, but just the advertising of it,” Matthews said. “Other than that, it was approved. You never know what the long-term reaction is going to be, but so far I think everybody feels OK with it.”
Hodges notes that Royal Lane’s public affirming position likely will cause some controversy in Texas Baptist life:
“The convention has been clear in its belief that the Bible teaches homosexual behavior is sinful,” said Randel Everett, the BGCT’s executive director. “As to the specific situation at Royal Lane Baptist Church, it would be premature for me to comment until I have spoken with the congregation’s leadership and gained all the facts.”
Matthews said Royal Lane wants to remain in the BGCT, a vehicle by which Baptist churches support evangelism, Baptist colleges and universities, and emergency relief efforts. He noted that Baptists traditionally have placed a high value on church autonomy, and he said he hopes the BGCT will not interfere in Royal Lane’s case.
…Royal Lane’s situation could be more complicated than Broadway’s, since Royal Lane’s membership includes BGCT staff members.
Read the entire article here.
See the website of Royal Lane Baptist Church.
In addition to the Baptist General Convention of Texas, Royal Lane Baptist Church is also affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.
Related posts:
- Royal Lane Post On Associated Baptist Press A shortened version of my March 17th post on Royal...
- Texas Baptists, Homosexuality and Royal Lane Baptist Church: A Few Short Thoughts Earlier today I attended a town-hall forum on hunger relief...
- Frank Page - Come Out of the Closet!!! Check out Bob Allen’s bombshell piece on SBC President Frank...
- A Third Baptist State Convention In Texas? The Baptist General Convention of Texas traces its roots back...
- North Carolina Congregation "Outs" Itself According to the Biblical Recorder, Myers Park Baptist Church in...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
SBC’s online church search lists Royal Lane as a participating SBC congregation, although the church itself does not mention the SBC on its own web site.
This is good news. If the CBF kicks them out, the Alliance will welcome them (or even if they don’t kick them out).
I hope they join the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB), which began in ABC circles, but has moved beyond. This would be the first AWAB congregation in TX I think and one of the largest.
I’m not sure why churches have to be open AND affirming. I think it is great news any time a conservative denomination or congregation moves away from narrow minded treatment of sinners (of any type), but affirmation of a behavior is not required or helpful.
The affirmation is of the moral worth of GLBT persons, not of any particular behavior. It is also an affirmation of ONE sexual standard for all Christians, straight or gay. Just as straight Christians have the moral options of celibacy OR monogamy, so must gay or lesbian Christians. No double-standard moralities.
Big Daddy,
Pick a side.
OK:
I support the full inclusion of all believers without regard to sexual orientation into the life of the congregation. Last year, after a long church search, my wife and I joined a congregation affiliated with the Alliance of Baptists, an organization whose history I have chronicled on their website (http://www.allianceofbaptists.org/learn/about/history). As an aside, my best friend is a gay Baptist minister and I wholeheartedly affirm her moral worth and calling to the ministry.
Aaron, COOL! (I do wish the Alliance and the Progressive National Baptists would merge.)
Aaron,
COOL! But realize, you and Michael are among a tiny minority of Baptists. I don’t think that even the New Baptist Covenant is ready to include your radical view.
The merging of any denominations / pseudo-denominations embracing your position into a new, larger “Free to be Me” Baptist body is probably advisable in order to be a blip on the Baptist radar.
This tiny minority, does it include Southern Baptists? If so, I readily concede your point.
In non-SBC circles, I sense that my generation of Baptists will approach this issue differently than older generations. Various surveys/studies of attitudes towards homosexuality among young Christians, even young evangelicals, seems to support that hunch…
I expect a Southern Baptist to dismiss the W&A position as “radical.” However, while moderates are obviously very divided on this issue and tend not to deal with it, I doubt you’ll find many active moderates describe a theology that affirms all believers regardless of sexual orientation as “radical.” Not a few American Baptists and I’d suspect a good many moderates have learned from the examples/teachings of Baptist leaders like Tony and Peggy Campolo who have actively demonstrated how to agree to disagree and still cooperate and fellowship with one another.
First, Weave, you are fabulous in so many ways.
Second, if the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community into the life, faith, and leadership of Baptist congregations is “radical,” perhaps it is even more in line with radical inclusion and welcome of Jesus. I’m just saying.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Tony Campolo is the major speaker at the Baptist Peace Fellowship’s Peace Camp this summer. They are a welcoming and affirming Baptist organization that did not ask him to be a speaker by accident.
I would be a fan of at least an informal merger or connection between BPFNA, Alliance, and AWAB. There are a lot more welcoming and affirming Baptists out there than people realize.
Speaking of mergers, the Baptist landscape will have to adapt or many organizations will be forced to shut down due to financial challenges.
It would be nice to see some sort of network emerge which would help progressive Baptists to have their voices heard in the realm of public policy, specifically to issues in addition to religious liberty where we already have great representation via the Baptist Joint Committee.
The Alliance is a “denomination” of sorts. BPFNA and AWAB aren’t. They work with Baptist congregations in several different denominations.
But, in a post-denominational age, perhaps all of them are networks and that is the wave of the future. IDK.
I agree with Aaron that the BJC’s single issue focus leaves us without a voice in D.C. on many other matters. During the Dawson days, the BJC was trying to broaden out in that way, but James Dunn (wisely, I think) narrowed its focus because religious liberty was the one issue that all the groups funding the BJC agreed upon.
Aaron,
Yes. The Baptist family of which your view is held by a tiny minority includes SBC and BGCT Baptists, whom Baylor and Truett–institutions dear to you–still claim to be accountable to.
It probably includes New Baptist Covenant Baptists, since Michael bemoaned that the Alliance (I think, or one of the homosexual affirming groups) was excluded from the broad array of participating Baptist bodies.
Sorry to confuse.
Chuck = Cat’s Dad.
While Baylor and Truett certainly enjoy a relationship with the BGCT, I doubt many Faculty/Staff/Seminarians/Students/Administration/Regents views the nature of that relationship in terms of “accountability.”
The organizers of the New Baptist Covenant acknowledged that it would be difficult to hold together a coalition which included explicitly pro-gay groups like AWAB and the Alliance. The reason stated, or at least the reason clearly implied, was that the historically Black groups would not support such an alliance.
The “moderate Baptists” (using that term in its historical sense here) are more of a mixed bunch. Just look at the columnists featured over at ABP. David Gushee’s views are at least gay friendly; his positions seems to have evolved. Amy Butler pastors an affirming congregation and has been a significant leader in the quest for marriage equality in D.C. And the younger columnists - Cody Sanders, etc. - reflect the attitudes of where many younger non-SBC Baptists are in 2010 on the issue of homosexuality: interested in having a conversation that *many* from the older generations have done their damnedest to avoid in recent years.
I understand the reasons for straddling the fence and trying to appear neutral or avoid the subject completely. But I’ve found myself playing guessing games at CBF General Assembly’s as the featured speakers preach JUSTICE. It’s often, though not always, unclear as to whether this “justice” includes or excludes gays and lesbians.
If sexual standards are a matter of “justice,” then what justice is there in the sexual repression of Christian singles — some of whom involuntarily remain single for life?
Any thoughts?