By Luke Smith
We live in a day where the boundaries of licit sexuality have shifted. Marriage is no longer the boundary of licit sexual behavior. The framing of the upcoming [Baptist] Conference on Sexuality and Covenant co-sponsored by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship strikes me to be quite reflective of this cultural shift.
The language of covenantal sexuality is in fact merely expanding licit sexual intercourse beyond marriage. My concern is that this is a perversion of the scriptural witness to sexual intimacy.
Young adults realize that opening a joint checking account with someone creates real vulnerability. In fact there is a greater willingness to share a bed than to share a bank account. This is indicative of what people fear — or what people fail to fear. Those advocating dialogue lack an appreciation for the potential costs associated with the loss of intimacy that is created by illicit sexual behavior.
We would not consider pederasty a position that we ought to leave up to individual conscience. We would not consider adultery something possible to affirm even if the married couple agreed to an “open marriage.” We would not consider the patronage of prostitutes an acceptable practice even for individuals who have otherwise been unable to enter the covenant of marriage.
I use these examples because we recognize each of these kinds of behaviors as intrinsically exploitative. Rather than modeling dialogue on important issues of the day, I fear we as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship are modeling how to allow a few loud and persistent voices to derail cooperative alliances.
I believe the voices that are orchestrating this conference do not represent most churches. I think it is important to resist allowing the framing of the issues to be set by people acting independently of their local congregations. Denominational meetings are often hijacked by persistent voices that have little or no influence in their local congregations.
Several years ago our church revisited its constitution and bylaws, making a few changes. Some of these changes pertained to the shared conviction of what it means to walk circumspectly.
The covenant previously had specifically enumerated the abstention from the consumption of alcoholic beverages as a shared conviction. This clause was removed. This was not done without serious discussion. It was decided that the clause was not reflective of the convictions of the church with regard to the scriptural guidance on this subject.
This is how a covenant community, in my estimation, should navigate such controversial issues. It may be a painful process. Negotiating quorums, apathy and super-majority requirements ensure that such ideas are vetted adequately.
I suspect strongly that if the views expressed by the progressives were vetted in the local congregations and the discussion to be apportioned according to the decisions of the local churches there would be a significantly different weighting of this discussion.
If my assessment is accurate this presents a great challenge to the CBF leadership. So long as individuals are allowed to set the parameters of such discussions framed principally from their own assumptions not born out of the local covenanted communities of which they are members, then inevitably the dialogue will be disconnected from the local church.
The CBF often emphasizes a respect for local church autonomy. This is undermined when individuals act independently of their local congregations.
As I have been writing this article, I have been interrupted a number of times. I visited the hospital to pray with individuals near death. I prayed with people getting better. I have been interrupted by meetings about upcoming mission team needs. I have been interrupted with the things of the local community.
It is quite easy to simply ignore these kinds of national conferences. I share my concerns because I fear if there isn’t a change the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will increasingly distance itself from the support it needs to sustain its mission.