Posted on 06/13/2014 9:56:44 PM PDT by Graybeard58
BALTIMORE (BP) -- Questions from churches about the transgender issue and the tide of culture pointed to the need for Southern Baptists to address the topic during their annual meeting, the convention's lead ethicist said.
Messengers to the 2014 Southern Baptist Convention approved a resolution on transgender identity Tuesday (June 10), marking the first time the SBC has addressed the issue in a stand-alone measure. After what appeared to be a unanimous vote on the convention floor, Russell D. Moore explained to reporters some reasons for the resolution.
On a recent day, he received three phone calls from pastors or church leaders who were dealing with the issue, said Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC).
Meanwhile, the transgender movement has made progress in the wider culture.
"The cultural mindset is that gender is something that is constructed by the individual," Moore said at a news conference after the vote. "So it's disconnected from how the person is created.
"And that's one of the reasons why I think this resolution ... was so wise, because it spoke to what the Bible teaches about what gender means in the first place, about how God's design is good," Moore said, "and then talked about the fact that we're living in a world that is fallen, in which there is a great deal of confusion in what it means to address that."
Moore told reporters, "Right now we're living in a situation where Time magazine just two weeks ago talked about the transgender issue as the new civil rights movement, the new frontier of the civil rights movement.... [W]e have to be prepared to give a witness and to give an answer from the Scripture on that."
David Dykes, chairman of the Resolutions Committee and pastor of Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas, pointed reporters to a clause in the resolution that noted a 2011 survey showed about 700,000 Americans consider their gender to be different than their biological sex.
"To this point we had not spoken on this issue, so there was a need for clarity" on the SBC's position, Dykes said.
Time's cover story reflected advances made by advocates for transgender recognition and normalization, such as:
-- A review board of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ruled May 30 that people receiving Medicare may no longer be automatically rejected for coverage of sex reassignment surgery.
-- 15 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that provide explicit protections for transgender people.
-- California enacted a law in August making it the first state to enable students to use the restrooms and play on the athletic teams of the gender they identify with, regardless of their biological sex. Public schools in New York City and other localities have issued guidelines that permit students to participate in sports and physical education in accordance with their gender identity, not their biology.
The SBC resolution adopted June 10 affirmed "God's good design that gender identity is determined by biological sex and not by one's self-perception."
It expressed "love and compassion" to people who deal with conflict between their biology and their gender identity. The statement invited all transgender people to put their faith in Jesus and welcomed them "to our churches and, as they repent and believe in Christ, receive them into church membership." It also recognized transgender people as image-bearers of God and denounced abuse and bullying toward them.
In addition, the resolution opposed attempts to change a person's "bodily identity" through such treatments as gender reassignment surgery.
Moore said the resolution "spoke with conviction about the issue -- very clear biblically about God's design for gender, for sexuality -- but also didn't just speak about transgender persons. It spoke to transgender persons with the message of the redeeming power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
"I think the committee has spoken with a great deal of wisdom and a great deal of pastoral sensitivity to this issue," Moore said. "I think it is a great sign of the Southern Baptist Convention taking seriously what it means to minister to a changing culture by addressing this issue at all."
The original resolution was submitted jointly by Denny Burk, associate professor at Boyce College in Louisville, Ky., and Andrew Walker, the ERLC's director of policy studies.
Bob Stith, founder of Family and Gender Issues Ministries in Southlake, Texas, described the resolution as "thorough, straightforward and redemptive. It stresses God's design and intent as well as hope and compassion."
"It took courage to tackle an issue which will almost certainly be misrepresented and misunderstood even though it is factually accurate and ultimately more compassionate than those who would oppose it," Stith said in a statement to Baptist Press. "It is always a more loving way to point to God's plan for His creation. The author of confusion has from the beginning sought to cast doubt on God's intentions, and the massive sexual disorientation rampant in our world today demonstrates that this tactic is still effective.
Stith noted that the key challenge related to the resolution "will be getting churches to really think through it and understand how to implement it in that same spirit of compassion and steadfastness. Will our churches be equally courageous in preparing our people for this brave new world?
"We cannot continue to ignore these issues or issue occasional comments in sermons and think that this will prepare Christians for these challenges," Stith said. "I pray that our churches will study this resolution carefully and seek wise counsel in helping to prepare our members to adequately defend these truths in the marketplace of ideas."
Ping.
Jesus freaks.
Didn’t SBC just essentially say its okay for churches in their denomination to approve of sodomy with no repercussions?
Didn’t SBC just essentially say its okay for churches in their denomination to approve of sodomy with no repercussions?
Nope. Where’d you get that information?
You are correct insofar as one congregation has voted to seek a relationship with its homosexual neighbors but the SBC as a whole body did not endorse it at all but affirmed the right of a congregation to make that choice and the right of that congregation to deny the pastor to do so.
Surely the SBC should in some way declare the church to no longer be a Southern Baptist church. What if they endorsed abortion?
More softening to the Leftist demonics. And yes, this was a softening.
Documentation?
I very seriously doubt that.
"Southern Baptist Convention President-elect Ronnie Floyd, senior pastor of Cross Church in northwest Arkansas, said that although America’s attitude toward gay and transgendered individuals is rapidly changing, the convention does not intend to alter its position that gender identity cannot be different from biological sex and that homosexuality is immoral."
They do not seem committed to disassociate the church in California that has gone totally rogue. That needs to be done.
re: “Surely the SBC should in some way declare the church to no longer be a Southern Baptist church. What if they endorsed abortion?”
There is no ministerial hierarchy in the SBC in the same sense as in more liturgical denominations. Individual Baptist churches cooperate voluntarily with the SBC. Therefore, the SBC cannot tell individual churches what they can or cannot do. Each individual SBC church finds/hires its own pastor and staff. Each SBC church determines its own budget, its own ministry goals and plans, its own calendar of events, etc.
The purpose of the national Southern Baptist Convention is to pool manpower and resources for national and world-wide evangelical efforts, for setting ministry emphasis, long range plans to meet the goals, the budget for seminary support, home and foreign mission work, etc.
The annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting is a big business meeting where cooperating churches hear reports on ministry goals and actions (as voted on by past conventions), and vote on future plans, budget, and goals, etc.
The annual conventions are attended by “messengers” from each individual Southern Baptist church. A duly elected “messenger” (voted on and selected by each individual church to represent that church at the national convention), may make a motion that the SBC not “seat” the messengers from a particular church and/or withdraw recognition and fellowship of a particular SB church because of perceived moral/theological infractions.
My understanding of what happens at that point is a bit fuzzy. I think that if the motion is seconded, there is discussion where evidence is given to justify such a motion. I think that sometimes there is an investigatory committee selected that will look into the matter to determine whether or not there is merit to the charges, give that church an opportunity to respond to the charges, then ultimately a report is made to the convention at the next annual meeting.
At that point, after the report is made at the next convention meeting, then it is possible that the committee will recommend either to go forward with withdrawing fellowship from that church, or, that the charges were false and to end the matter at that point.
It is rare that such a thing occurs, but it does happen from time to time. Even so, if the SBC withdraws fellowship with that church, it has no authority to remove pastors or personnel - only that that church may not attend SBC meetings at the local, state, or national level, and, that that church may not participate in any sponsored SBC efforts or events, until that church makes the appropriate changes to bring them into conformity with SBC theological and moral requirements. At least that’s my understanding of the process.
"Earlier this month, a Southern California SBC church decided to stop condemning homosexuality as sinful and instead embraced a "third way." Floyd said Wednesday that in relaxing its views on gay members, the church and its pastor had "chosen to disassociate itself with the Southern Baptist Convention" and that the denomination "does not support or condone" such action."
New president: Southern Baptist won't change its stance on gay marriage, transgender identity
"Bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out!"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3167309/posts
As I understand it, the issue is actually one of timing. Apparently the church remains officially affiliated until next summer due to rules, so hopefully the formal kicking out will happen then.
A helpful Freeper commented thus
“....it is a matter for the SBC Annual Convention...Baptist polity does not allow him or the California arm of the SBC he leads to revoke a congregation’s membership. Unless the denomination acts at their national gathering this week, New Heart will remain a participating Southern Baptist congregation until at least next Summer....”
Fingers crossed
“transgender” == mentally disturbed freaks we’re being forced to tolerate
Baptist ping
TO ALL :(This list is on my home page, Please feel free to use it anytime at no charge. Don’t wait on me to happen by FR.)
Ronnie Floyd knows WHO he answers to. I pray he doesn’t cave during his term. The Truth will set everyone free in these last days.
Yes, and I’m proud to be one!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.