In recent days passions have been stirred.
Ginter Park’s decision to ordain a gay man to the gospel ministry, along with the Virginia Baptist Mission Board executive committee action asking the church to voluntarily withdraw from the Baptist General Association of Virginia, have fired strong feelings both on the part of those who have rushed to the church’s defense and those who argue that the executive committee’s action was correct.
Jim White
|
Discussions on the autonomy of the church, however, have largely missed the point. To my knowledge, no one disputes that any Baptist church has a right to make its own decisions. No denominational hierarchy can force a decision on a local Baptist body of believers. Simply put, the BGAV cannot force Ginter Park to take any action and it cannot force the church to rescind the action it has just taken in this ordination.
But autonomy does not mean that churches do not have to abide by the consequences of their actions. Unless the leadership of Ginter Park was so out of step with the BGAV that it was unaware of specific action taken by that body on the subject of homosexuality, or unless they assumed that past action would be superseded by changed attitudes on the topic, they had to know their action would have consequences.
You may agree with the action taken in 1993, when the BGAV adopted a statement saying that it understood the Bible to say that homosexuality was sinful; or you may disagree. But surely we all must agree that the BGAV has the right and responsibility to say what it believes is right and wrong and to hold churches in its fellowship accountable on the basis of that understanding.
Some might say that since the consequences were not spelled out, and since governing documents do not cite specifically that this action would result in exclusion, that the BGAV executive committee had no right to ask Ginter Park to withdraw under threat of being excluded. This line of reasoning would mean that the BGAV could not exclude the Westboro Baptist Church for its anti-gay hate propaganda if it happened to be in Virginia instead of (thank God) in Kansas unless it specifically said in its bylaws that a church could not be a bigoted, hate-filled group that pickets the funerals of military men and women killed in action.
Having initiated this action as an autonomous body, Ginter Park can hardly claim now to be a victim of BGAV persecution. Every group has not only the right, but the responsibility to define itself. Early Baptists confessions were exactly that. They were not documents saying who couldn’t get in, or who had to get out, but statements saying that, generally speaking, these are the convictions and practices we have in common. Not every church agreed uniformly, but if they strayed too far from the norm, discipline was a common practice in early Baptist life.
Neither should the executive committee’s stand be construed as homophobia. In all of the rhetoric on the subject, we must not forget that for most Virginia Baptists this is a biblical question, not a social one. Without doubt, Virginia Baptists have strong opinions about what should or should not become part of the social fabric. We hope that the BGAV would always side with protecting the rights of individual citizens to live without fear of being bullied, brutalized or the target of bias whatever their tastes, preferences and types.
The action of the BGAV executive committee has nothing to do with civil rights for gays and everything to do with what the committee understands to be faithfulness to the Bible on the subject.
But we should not assume that Ginter Park reached its conclusion in opposition to what it believed the Bible teaches. These brothers and sisters in Christ (did they cease to be such when they voted for the ordination?) surely wrestled with the meaning of verses that seem so plain to those who believe homosexual acts are sinful. Can we benefit from hearing how they arrived at the belief that, biblically speaking, being gay did not disqualify this man from serving the Lord authentically?
Of course, some will simply not want to know how they arrived at this conclusion. They believe their scriptural footing is so solid they refuse even to listen. I am one who understood the Bible to condemn homosexuality. But when a brother says, “We looked at the Scripture and came to a different conclusion,” I am curious enough to want to know how they did that.
Unlike some of the brethren (and sisters, too!), I have never been blessed with the notion that I could not be wrong about things. After all, biblical interpreters of an earlier age were absolutely certain they could not be wrong about the earth being flat. The Bible said so, they asserted. End of discussion. Later, others claimed slavery was an institution ordained by God. The Bible said so, they asserted without fear of being wrong.
The executive committee has every right to do what it did, but surely it would do us no harm to listen. Healthy and respectful give and take can only serve to make us better Christians even if it serves only to deepen current convictions. At least we see others through clearer lenses of grace.
Jim White ([email protected]) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.