At the March 19 meeting of the Richmond Baptist Association concerning Ginter Park Baptist Church, I spoke in opposition to the recommendation that was passed. The next night Beth Wright, director of the RBA’s children’s summer camp, spoke at our church. It was a powerful reminder of why Second Baptist has been a member of RBA since its founding. We share a common core with the 68 other member congregations, defined in our RBA constitution as maintaining “New Testament principles.” These core biblical beliefs generate a common mission — a mission beautifully carried out at Camp Alkulana: Children from some of Richmond’s most underserved neighborhoods enjoy a camp experience and RBA staff share the love of Jesus with them.
Craig Sherouse
|
After hearing Beth, I read the Religious Herald web post by my friend, Jim Somerville, in which he reflected on the RBA meeting. Jim states concerning Camp Alkulana: “And if the Buddhists decide they want to send us a check? We’ll take it.” I agree. But the Buddhists would not have liked Beth’s presentation. If the Buddhists understand our core, our common mission, why would they want to send us a check to share Jesus with children? But those are not the RBA issues of March 19. Those issues might better be framed: “If a Buddhist temple wants to join the RBA, will we accept them for membership? Are there any boundaries for membership in the RBA?”
There is a huge difference between partnership and membership. Partnership comes from shared goals. Membership comes from shared identity, shared core, shared “brand,” shared New Testament principles. Membership is a privilege and responsibility. And at times, even in autonomous Baptist life, membership must be superintended by an association in order to protect the integrity of the core. Otherwise, the mission will absolutely suffer.
I served for a while on the ad hoc committee that brought the recommendation to the RBA. Since I opposed it, I resigned before the vote was taken in the committee so that I would feel freer to speak against it at the meeting. As I participated in this committee process, the issues fell to me under two questions: 1) Does our association have the right and responsibility to superintend our membership, despite lacking such a bylaw? And, 2) Has Ginter Park’s ordination service crossed a boundary of acceptable practice that merits a superintending response?
I do not believe the ad hoc study committee ever seriously considered any superintending response because they did not believe the association had such a right. The language of “congregational autonomy,” used in the recommendation, was interpreted to mean that any member of the RBA could do virtually anything it wanted without any associational membership consequences.
That is a misunderstanding of Baptist autonomy. Every Baptist association is also fully autonomous. Going back to the founding of the first associations in our country, most associations have clear bylaws for superintending their memberships. Lacking any such article does not mean the RBA cannot superintend membership. Twenty years ago the church I formerly pastored in another state was censured by our association for ordaining a woman. I thoroughly disagreed that we had crossed a boundary of acceptable practice, but I never disputed that the association had the authority to censure.
The superintending resolution my former association passed censured churches that “ordain women and homosexuals.” It is interesting that both the theological right and the theological left lump these two ordinations together, whereas those of us in the theological middle see them as vastly different. Jim Somerville stated at the March 19 meeting, as referenced by the Herald, that First Baptist recently ordained a young, biracial woman. He inferred that somehow her ordination could be likewise questionable by some in the RBA. But RBA churches have been ordaining women for decades. It is a non-issue. Even our theologically right congregations have not tried to make an issue of women’s ordination. Lumping women’s ordination together with the ordination of homosexual persons blurs the issues.
But this issue gets lumped together with a lot of things. It is seen primarily through the lens of a gay family member or friend, or the shifting tide of culture on the issue of gay marriage, or the civil rights movement, or the deep desire to just “make nice” with everyone. But the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person is a biblical/theological issue, not a civil issue. The issue is not about welcoming, or even affirming. The issue is ordaining. Every ordination I have ever participated in referenced 1Timothy 3:2, “Now a bishop/overseer [pastor] must be above reproach.” That is a serious qualification that every pastor struggles to maintain.
Ministerial ordination is a serious, autonomous-congregational function in Baptist life. But listen to what our RBA bylaws also say: “In an association of churches, bonded by a conscious cooperative spirit, upon ordination a minister becomes, in a very real sense, a servant of all the churches.” To be “above reproach” has implications outside of the ordaining congregation and into the wider Baptist family.
Most of the American denominations have spent decades debating this issue. The United Methodists are about the only hierarchical denomination that has maintained a “non-ordination” policy toward non-celibate homosexual persons. But at least these denominational groups gave this issue the serious biblical/theological attention it deserves. The RBA committee had three meetings (and never even talked with Ginter Park), and the RBA had a two and a half hour meeting. And very little of that time, in my opinion, was given to such core issues as New Testament membership boundaries and the tough-love right and responsibility of our association to superintend our membership.
I believe Ginter Park’s ordination has seriously challenged the RBA’s common core, defined as churches maintaining “New Testament principles.” I also believe this ordination has seriously challenged this cooperative spirit that has bound us together as a missional association. I believe that the passage of this recommendation may lead to the departure of enough churches from the RBA as to handicap our cooperative missions work. I also believe that other autonomous associations with whom the RBA partners are already evaluating whether they will continue to participate with us.
I personally sought a “third option” for superintending Ginter’s Park’s membership other than doing nothing or removing them. I felt the recommendation needed to do more than report the discontent among many churches regarding this ordination. I felt some level of censure and biblical/theological disagreement should have been voiced. Perhaps we could have even had an official RBA conversation with Ginter Park. Could there be some kind of probationary membership status? Our neighboring association, the Dover Baptist Association, requires at least a year of conversation with a congregation that “deliberately departs from biblical doctrine and Christian practice as understood by the member churches.” Could Dover, who helped birth many of our RBA churches, help mentor us through this crisis?
Several other pastors and I initiated a meeting several weeks ago with Ginter Park’s impressive new pastor, Mandy England Cole, and three sincere, insightful leaders. We openly discussed our concerns, including the impact this was having on our shared mission. We tried to investigate options, but no third option seemed to emerge. I still believe there could have been one, but the ad hoc study committee had no interest in such, anyway.
During a vigorous exchange in our ad hoc RBA study committee I asked the question: “Are there any boundaries to our membership? If we think we have no right or responsibility as an association to deal with this issue because of Ginter Park’s ‘congregational autonomy’ are there any other issues or beliefs that would put a congregation’s membership in question or call for some action on our part?” There was silence in the committee meeting. I repeated my question, and finally an answer: “There are 13 congregations that no longer contribute or participate. I suppose we could at some point decide that they are no longer a part of us.”
So, just perhaps, there are some boundaries to membership, even in the RBA. But they do not seem to come from our core. They do not seem to emerge from shared identity and “New Testament principles.” They seem to be much more about partnership — giving money and coming to meetings. So maybe we should consider a name change to the “Richmond Strategic Partnership.” And just maybe a Buddhist temple can now not only send a check if they want, they can even join, as long as they also come to a meeting.
Psalm 62:1 is guiding me through this season of Lent and towards Holy Week: “For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation.” Homosexuality and the ordination of homosexual persons have never been my “hot button” issues, nor are they ones I intend for my ministry or congregation to become identified by. But this issue came to our RBA family, and so it came to my church and me. I have said more than I ever wanted to say about it. For now, I return to silence, prayer and the hope of resurrection salvation.
Craig Sherouse ([email protected]) is pastor of Second Baptist Church in Richmond.