SBC Faces Homosexuality
Vol. V, No. 3, June 1992
[This article compiled from Baptist Press; commentary by T.C. Pinckney.]
Our last issue reported in the James Hefley article the action regarding homosexuality contemplated by two churches in North Carolina. Both have now made decisions. Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh approved the "same-gender union" of two homosexual men by a 64% majority, and the "union" took place 15 March. Binkley Memorial Baptist Church of Chapel Hill endorsed licensing a homosexual man to the ministry by a 57-42 percentage vote 5 April.
Binkley "has been committed in its history to inclusiveness," Linda Jordan, the church's pastor since May 1990, told Baptist Press, "and so this is not as foreign as it may look." The church was heavily involved in the civil rights movement, she said, and has been part of "the struggle for women to hold places of leadership in the church" and has adopted sexually inclusive language in its worship.
Binkley's deacons listed the following reasons against licensure: (1) "The Scriptures speak clearly to the point that homosexual behavior is sinful. ... (2) "A practicing homosexual is an inappropriate role model as a minister." (3) "While we celebrate the inclusive nature of our congregation, being inclusive does not require approval of sinful behavior. In the same way, moral disapproval cannot be equated with having 'a lack of love, acceptance, or regard for civil rights and social justice." (4) "The traditional teaching of the Christian Church for 2,000 years opposes the practice of homosexuality. There is not sufficient evidence to abandon this position."
(Comment: It is striking that although they clearly recognized what God's Word says, the deacons recommended approval to the church and the church so voted. They have knowingly placed themselves in opposition to the Bible. Both the deacons and 57% of the 531 members who voted set their will, their judgment above the Word of God.)
Reactions have been swift and revealing. In expectation of such actions, the SBC Executive Committee at its February meeting (the last until it convenes 8 June, the day before the 9-11 June SBC meeting) passed a very strong resolution and directed its Bylaws Workgroup to suggest at the 8 June meeting measures the Executive Committee can recommend to SBC messengers to deal with the situation. It is anticipated that these measures will disfellowship any church which endorses the practice of homosexuality.
Binkley is not a member of the Chapel Hill area Pace Baptist Association. But Pullen is affiliated with the Raleigh Baptist Association. On 8 April the association's executive committee drafted proposals to be presented at a special association meeting on 5 May. The implementing clause of the motion states, "the Executive Committee of the Raleigh Baptist Association recommends that as of May 5, 1992, fellowship be withdrawn from Pullen Memorial Baptist Church. That means no member of Pullen ... Church shall be permitted to serve on any Associational board, committee, or commission from May 6, 1992 until the annual association meeting on October 26-27, 1992. Nor shall any messenger be allowed voting privileges at regular or called Association sessions. If Pullen ... Church makes the desired change of its beliefs and practices in this matter by that time, the Association will receive said church in good fellowship. If not, the relationship of the Raleigh Baptist Association and Pullen Memorial Baptist Church will be terminated."
Beyond SBC ties, both churches are members of the American Baptist Convention, and the Alliance of Baptists (formerly the Southern Baptist Alliance), and Pullen is affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF). Mahan Siler, pastor of Pullen, is a member of the Alliance's board of directors and has led workshops on homosexuality and the church at its last two annual meetings.
R. G. Puckett, editor of the N.C. Biblical Recorder, wrote "The central issue ... is not homosexuality and the teachings of Scripture about it but rather church autonomy." The lines of debate are clearly drawn between what shall take precedence, local church autonomy or the teachings of Scripture on homosexual conduct, he said.
(Comment: How a Southern Baptist can hold that a matter of polity perhaps implicit in the New Testament but certainly not explicit is more important than a matter which is definitively addressed as is homosexuality is beyond this writer. Now be careful. Local church autonomy is important, extremely important to Southern Baptists. Yet how can one act in direct opposition to clear scriptural commands in the name of local autonomy? Moreover, to frame the issue as homosexuality versus autonomy is a red herring, a false and misleading statement of the problem: the fact is that the local church is autonomous but no more so than the local association, state convention, and/or SBC. Thus, no SBC action can require either church to change or modify its practices. What the SBC can and should do is prevent those local churches from establishing a new standard of what is acceptable practice for Southern Baptist churches. For the SBC to take no action would be to accept homosexual practices as acceptable within the fellowship of the Southern Baptist Convention. The real issues are [a] loyalty to the Bible's clear commands and [b] the autonomy of the SBC to determine its own membership requirements in accord with the Bible.)
Six officers of the NC state convention drafted a recommendation to the state general board stating, "No funds of any kind, designated or undesignated, shall be accepted by this convention, its programs, institutions, or agencies, from any church which knowingly takes, or has taken, any official action which manifests public approval, promotion or blessing of homosexuality. Any such church shall not qualify as a `cooperating church' as defined in Article IV, A, 3 of the Constitution of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina."
At the 7 April meeting of the state Executive Committee the officers' recommendation was defeated nine to eight. The nine negative votes reportedly included several by CBF members one of whom was John Hewett, CBF chairman. Lamar Brooks, president of the NC general board and chairman of the executive committee, said this vote would not change the officers' recommendation to the general board when it meets 19 May.
North Carolina conservatives have met and decided to recommend their members support the officers' recommendation to disfellowship churches which condone active homosexuality.
The Georgia Baptist Convention Executive Committee also passed a strong resolution condemning the actions of Pullen and Binkley churches. The resolution states, "We condemn your actions concerning homosexuality as a grievous sin and abomination against God, the Southern Baptist Convention, and our own Georgia Baptist Convention." The author of the motion, Roger Whorton, pastor of Southside Baptist Church in Cedartown, said his resolution was not "an attack on the state of North Carolina or on the autonomy of these two churches but it is an attack on heresy." He warned the body that "this heresy will eat away at the foundation of our beliefs and values until it ultimately destroys us." The resolution passed without debate and without a dissenting vote.
Comment: Readers are advised to pray about this issue and think it through as they carefully study the Scripture passages dealing with homosexuality, such as Genesis 1-2, Romans 1:21-32, and I Corinthians 6:9-10. Those who come to Indianapolis as messengers will undoubtedly be faced with a vote on it, and at some point we may have to deal with the issue here in Virginia. Be prepared.