Any thoughts?

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.

Chuck = Cat’s Dad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.