The distinction you make between orientation and acts *is* the story because the maintenance of that distinction is unsustainable. That’s what makes this story so interesting. Royal Lane had been GLBT friendly for decades, but it was a change to their web site that caused the action. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a story about the decision process within the BGCT? Why was Royal Lane ok before they changed the web site to be inclusive of

“a vibrant mosaic of varied racial identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and denominational backgrounds.”

If a homosexual orientation is not sinful, the BGCT doesn’t have a doctrinal argument. They appear to be operating out of prejudice. You’re right. This is going to get complicated.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Now, I issued a mild criticism of one part of a story that I praised. I simply stated that I thought there were broader issues at stake, from the point of view of the BGCT.

Jonathan:

You found one BGCT position on one wording of the issue. Rest assured that there are more.

I remain skeptical that Baptists on the left side of the spectrum would say that homosexual orientation itself is sinful, as opposed to homosexual acts.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Where did we get off topic. The Dallas Morning News said:

The BGCT’s long-held position is that homosexuality is a sin.

and you criticized their reporting with:

While reporter Sam Hodges is very skilled in covering Baptist affairs — he’d better be, in Dallas — the framing for the doctrinal issue is still wrong. According to the story, the “BGCT’s long-held position is that homosexuality is a sin.”

Actually, I am sure that the convention would say that it’s stance is that all sex outside of marriage is a sin. Is the mysterious orientation called “homosexuality” — or how about bisexuality — automatically a sin? I am sure that the BGCT, while it may have taken stands on issues linked to homosexuality, would not state the ancient doctrine in Christian moral theology in this way.

I researched the BGCT position and found it to be:

“The homosexual lifestyle is not normal or acceptable in God’s sight and is indeed called sin.”

You brought up the ‘mysterious orientation called “homosexuality”’. It’s pretty hard to just talk about these doctrinal and rhetorical differences if the terms aren’t defined or dismissed for being “mysterious”. To fail to drill down is shallow reporting/blogging. Don’t you think so?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Spiking away.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes, I understand, and as OhReally, citing Jesus explains, a thought *is* a behavior. My first comment described a doctrinal use case. If David and Jonathan are saving themselves for marriage but behave as a head-over-heels in love engaged couple, are they living the “homosexual lifestyle”? Are they engaging in “homosexual BEHAVIOR”?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It is interesting that no one condemns a married man, say, of trying to remove unwanted thoughts of lust/adultery. The book “Every Man’s Battle” is very successful in detailing how to do just that.

There is even an “Anger Management for Dummies”. Where is the cry, “God may me that way and God doesn’t make mistakes” from the Angry People Association?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Note that it said homexual BEHAVIOR is sin, in the second case. The top one is sloppy, but the use of the word “lifestyle” also implies activity, not simply orientation.

I never doubted that the BGCT had stated a stance on any homosexual issues.

I wrote:

“I am sure that the BGCT, while it may have taken stands on issues linked to homosexuality, would not state the ancient doctrine in Christian moral theology in this way.”

Like or Dislike: 0  0

FYI, here is the SBC’s <a href="http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssexuality.asp"position on sexuality:

We affirm God’s plan for marriage and sexual intimacy – one man, and one woman, for life. Homosexuality is not a “valid alternative lifestyle.” The Bible condemns it as sin. It is not, however, unforgivable sin. The same redemption available to all sinners is available to homosexuals. They, too, may become new creations in Christ.

Here is the “position of the BGCT:

Homosexual behavior is sin
The BGCT position expressed at its 1982 Annual Meeting has never changed: “The homosexual lifestyle is not normal or acceptable in God’s sight and is indeed called sin.”…

So the emphasis is on “homosexuality is sin”, not sex outside of marriage as you stated. You may want to correct the post.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Please explain your point. Dunn’s statement is simply a crisp way of expressing the often confusing layers of Baptist church polity….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Can anyone explain why this statement is not more juvenile than sane? It sounds like something a writer for PATROL might sputter….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

As a practical matter it’s better for a church to hold that “homosexuality is a sin”. Otherwise, it’s not hard to imagine a situation where an out gay couple - let’s call them David and Jonathan for scriptural relevance - could be active in the church. The other members of the church could witness their love grow. They could watch them court, fall in live and get engaged. They’d be just like the other couples in the church except for their sexuality.

Over the years, the members of the church would see heterosexual couples marry and move on with their lives. David and Jonathan would be stuck in the engaged state forever or until the church expanded its definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. This situation would cause too much dissonance to be tolerated.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0