The Baptist Standard | The Texas Baptist Newsjournal
     
 
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Home arrow News arrow Dallas church publicly acknowledges welcoming stance toward gays
Register Register Help Tools
Healthcare Symposium
Subscribe to our FirstLook weekly
e-mail preview

 
Dallas church publicly acknowledges welcoming stance toward gays Print E-mail
By Ken Camp, Managing Editor   
Published: March 09, 2010

DALLAS—A North Dallas church has changed its website to identify itself as inclusive of varied sexual orientations—a move that potentially could put the church at odds with the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

A March 6 article in the Dallas Morning News characterized the move as the church coming “out of the closet” regarding its quietly welcoming stance toward gays and lesbians—including allowing them leadership positions as deacons.

“In effect, this is a collective coming out about who we are and have been for a long time,” Ruth May, vice chair of deacons, told the newspaper, which identified her as a lesbian.

Pastor David Matthews noted he was scheduled to meet with BGCT Executive Director Randel Everett and BGCT President David Lowrie at the Baptist Building in Dallas on March 11, and he was reluctant to comment publicly prior to that meeting.

Matthews did confirm the accuracy of the Dallas Morning News article, and he noted the website revision was approved by the church’s deacons Feb. 14.

“Royal Lane Baptist Church is an inclusive, multi-generational congregation joined in Christian community. We are a vibrant mosaic of varied racial identities, ethnicities, sexual orientations and denominational backgrounds,” the church’s website states.

The website also identifies the church as “an ecumenical Baptist congregation affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Baptist General Convention of Texas.”

Royal Lane has been hesitant to use the term “welcoming and affirming” to describe its stance toward gays because “that term means such different things to different people,” Matthews added.

Members of Royal Lane have not voted to change the church’s mission statement,  bylaws or membership criteria, he emphasized. The website description is “simply a statement about who we are,” he said.

“We hope to maintain our connection to the BGCT and other Baptist groups with whom we relate, and we welcome conversations toward that end,” Matthews said.

BGCT officials declined to speculate how the state convention would respond to Royal Lane until after the face-to-face meeting. However, similar action by University Baptist Church in Austin in the 1990s prompted BGCT Executive Board action.

But this time, the Executive Board includes a director from the church in question—Doug Washington, a member of Royal Lane. Members of the church also have served on the BGCT Executive Board staff at the Baptist Building.

In 1995, University Baptist Church ordained a gay deacon—a move that caused Austin Baptist Association to cut ties with the church. And in response to a motion introduced at the BGCT annual meeting that fall, the Texas state convention created a committee to study whether it should amend its constitution to disallow affiliation with churches that allow non-celibate homosexuals to serve as deacons or pastors.

The 1996 Messenger Seating Study Committee declined to recommend any constitutional change. However, the committee’ report—subsequently affirmed by convention messengers—stated: “The Bible teaches that the ideal for sexual behavior is the marital union between husband and wife and that all other sexual relations—whether premarital, extramarital or homosexual—are contrary to God’s purposes and thus sinful.”

A year later, the issue resurfaced when convention leaders became aware University Baptist church posted on its website its affiliation with the BGCT, along with statements noting the church had ordained a gay deacon and made its facility available to a gay group.

That led the BGCT Administrative Committee to recommend—and the Executive Board to approve—a motion that the BGCT refuse any financial contributions from University Baptist Church and ask the church to stop identifying itself publicly as a BGCT-affiliated congregation.

University Baptist Church declined to contest its relationship with the BGCT by sending messengers to the annual meeting and risking not having them seated. Subsequently, the church chose to discontinue its relationship with the BGCT.

Last year, Broadway Baptist Church in Fort Worth also declined to send messengers to the BGCT annual meeting after questions were raised about the church’s position on homosexual behavior.

In June 2009, the Southern Baptist Convention severed its relationship with Broadway Baptist over the church’s perceived toleration of gay members, even though a letter sent by a church representative to the SBC Executive Committee’s general counsel stated: “Broadway never has taken any church action to affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior.”

Prior to the 2009 BGCT annual meeting, in anticipation of a challenge from the convention floor regarding Broadway’s messengers, some Texas Baptist pastors proposed a compromise—allowing messengers from the church to be seated but referring the matter of Broadway’s position on sexual ethics to the BGCT Executive Board for study.

At the time Broadway Baptist chose not to send messengers to the annual meeting, Pastor Brent Beasley said, “To not go stops a vote, doesn’t force us into this compromise, and gives us the time and freedom to decide where we go from here with the BGCT.”











Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Trackback(0)
Comments (15)Add Comment
...
written by feathers, March 09, 2010
What next? What happens when a polygamist joins a church and is elected a deacon or a pastor wants to take a second or third wife? Or better yet what if a deacon is elected who brings his or her live in lover and flaunts him or her before the church? This is more than a matter of fundamentalism versus moderate or liberal. This is a matter of making the Scriptures say what your cultural bias wants it to say. In a way this kind of eisegesis is just as bad as those try to justify spousal abuse by quoting Scripture! Cy Fletcher, Baytown
Time to Take a Stand
written by wtexborn, March 11, 2010
If the BGCT does not take a stand in support of the universal truth of God's Word with respect to homosexuality in response to Royal Lane and Broadway's actions, it will lose support of the overwhelming majority of Texas Baptists. This would be a disaster for the great institutions supported by Texas Baptists who, via their giving and affliation with the BGCT, provide critical financial resources to these institutions. I am confident that wise leaders of the BGCT such as Mr. Everett and Mr. Lowrie will not let this happen.
Open Your Eyes
written by MarkOsgatharp, March 11, 2010
Open your eyes, folks. The falsely so called "moderate" Baptists have a monkey grip on the BGCT. They are not Baptists. They are modernists. Modernists are not Christians, they are modernists and modernists don't believe in the authority of the Bible.

Do the math!

The situation will not get better, it will only get worse. The only recourse is total ecclesiastical separation from these people. The souls of your posterity is at stake.

Open your eyes.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
Are The Baptist Joint Commissions and Brent Walker in step with Texas Baptists??
written by Ameritianity, March 11, 2010
"Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, agreed with findings of a task force convened by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs "
written by Ameritianity, March 05, 2010

Of course it does. Baptist Joint Committee also disagrees with 95% of Texas voters but seeks its own will. Much in the same way that the Obama Cult seeks to impose a Federal takeover of the HealthCare Industry in America, regardless of the fact that 85% of Americans oppose it to some degree, especially if it includes government payment for abortions and a "Government Plan." America's intellectual elite Progressive/Liberals insist that they know what is best for our citizens.

Here is a recent statement from the BJC:

"One peculiarity of yesterday's statewide primary in Texas is that the Republican ballot included not only candidate races but also ballot propositions. These are non-binding of course - we can't let members of one party determine state law - but they do reflect the viewpoints of their party's voters on issues they would like to see become public policy. One of the gems up for a vote yesterday was Ballot Proposition 4 - Public Acknowledgment of God:
The use of the word “God”, prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.

It's hard to say what's worse here, the misleading language - after all, God and prayers are "allowed" in all of those places so long as they do not constitute government speech or imply government endorsement- or the political cynicism that would try to drive voters to your party by giving them hot-button, sensationalized religious themes at the ballot box. (Want to "acknowledge God"? You must be right for our party!)

Dividing citizens between the religious and non-religious is a sad political strategy, bad for our politics and our religion alike. It replaces serious discussion about church-state issues and the role of faith in government with a false choice and a foolish contest, over who loves God more.

The measure passed, by the way, 95%-5%."

"Which is worse" is actually that Baptists are represented "inside the Beltway" by a Progressive/Liberal Organization that purports to speak for Baptists yet constantly comes down on the side of elimination of any Christian influence on our nation. The BJC should disband and join the ACLU.

The BJC statement that “… after all, God and prayers are "allowed" in all of those places so long as they do not constitute government speech or imply government endorsement …” is false and misleading. The fact is that any place government is . . . schools, courts, the side of a hill in California, the post office, a public street, the prayer of a teacher, a military barracks, the prayer of an attorney in court . . . and God or CHRISTIAN Prayer are expressed, and “implied government endorsement” can be claimed.

This is why the unconstitutional intrusion by the FEDERAL Government into areas of our lives is so detrimental to the cause of Christ, our Christian influence, our traditional American culture, and beneficial to anti-Christians. For example, there was no FEDERAL intrusion into education until LBJ’s “great society” of the 1960’s. Prayer was in schools. The 10 Commandments was on the walls in schools and our courts (because that is what our legal system was based on).

All the more reason to STOP the FEDERAL Governments further intrusion into our lives. It is actually the FEDERAL Government that has and continues to “violate the separation of Church and State” and the BJC is on the wrong side once again. Perhaps TERM LIMITS should apply to our governmental representatives AND BJC employees and spokesmen.


Christians are to be a peculiar people...
written by justsome thoughts, March 12, 2010
The shifts going on across our nation with regard to sexual ethics are going to force Texas Baptists to either reject Scripture as our authority or reject our culture's definition of acceptable practice. If the wages of sin is death, then ambivalence on this issue is nothing short of hate for the world and love for ourselves. We do no favor to those struggling with or committed to a homosexual lifestyle if we communicate that homosexual sex is a spiritually healthy option that is compatible with a growing Christian faith.

As a convention we have spoken clearly on this issue and our position is in line with Scripture and 5000 years of Judeo-Christian history. Those who are outside of this tradition should have the integrity to leave our fellowship. If they do not, we have no choice but to ask them to find some group with which they can find agreement.

Folks, the next decades are going to be rough sledding and the sooner we take a definitive stand on this issue, the better for all parties involved. This is a fellowship breaker because Royal (and perhaps Broadway) are seeking to redefine sin as love. Because we believe sin brings death, our love for the homosexual community will not allow us to deny Scripture on this issue.
Grow A Backbone
written by MarkOsgatharp, March 12, 2010
justsome thoughts,

You said,

"Those who are outside of this tradition should have the integrity to leave our fellowship."

Duhhh, people who condone perversion don't have any integrity so how could you expect them to act with integrity? These people are anti-Christ. They are categorically ungodly.

"If they do not, we have no choice but to ask them to find some group with which they can find agreement."

Ask them to find some group with which they can find agreement? Where do you find any such lame instruction in the Scriptures?

Here is what the Bible says:

"put out from among yourselves that wicked person."

"a man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject."

"come out from among them and be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing."

"whose mouths must be stopped."

"mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them."

"if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican"

"receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

etc, etc, etc.

This is war, not kindergarten. Say something Biblical in a Biblical way and sign your real name to it. GROW A BACKBONE! The souls of your posterity depend on it!

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
"In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love"
written by wtexborn, March 13, 2010
The author of "Christian are to be a particular people" presents a logical discussion of a very serious issue that the BGCT will need to take a stand (which the BGCT has done before, and I fully expect will do in this instance). The author's argument that Royal Lane and Broadway should have the integrity to leave the fellowship of the BGCT is "spot on" and reflects the majority of our fellowship. While firm in his/her conviction, the author's words are not overly harsh. They deal with an essential value of our Faith that is universal and everlasting. On the other hand, Mr. Osagtharp takes a very different tone - one that is extreme and "war like." Mr. Osagtharp demeans "Justsome thoughts" by implying that he/she does not have a backbone. In a prior post on this story, Mr. Osagtharp also attacked the BGCT (maybe living in Arkansas, he is not aware of the wonderful, world-class institutions that the BGCT supports in our state). Mr. Osagtharp's approach is not in line with the wise counsel of a historical saying in the global Christian community (one that some attribute to Augustine in the fourth century)- "In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love"
wtexborn
written by MarkOsgatharp, March 14, 2010
wtexborn,

It is just that sort of kid glove treatment of patent heresy and filth that has allowed the modernists to march in and take over in the first place. So you take the soft soap approach and I'll take the Bible approach and we'll see which one God approves of come judgment day.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
...
written by homebody, March 16, 2010
to Mark Osgatharp

Would you have cast a stone at the woman caught in adultry? Jesus didn't.

Would you have distanced yourself from the 10 lepers? Jesus didn't.

Would you have turned your back on the blind beggar? Jesus didn't.

There is not one recorded incident in which Jesus rejected the outcasts of society. To minister to someone is not to condone what they do.
homebody
written by clhess, March 17, 2010
Great post. But, who is interested in what Jesus did or didn't do?
Homebody...CONDONE?
written by Ameritianity, March 17, 2010
Come on now! You know the difference between "Ministering to" and allowing those who are in open sin and rebellion to be in leadership positions within the Church.

It is sorta like "tollerance" and "acceptance as just as good"

Love Thy Neighbor - includes gay people too!
written by txbeliever, March 17, 2010
Even if you disagree with homosexuality - we are still commanded to love all people. Why are so many of you speaking (or typing) words of hate on here? I don't believe for one moment that Christ would throw a gay person out of church! I left the Baptist church because it is so judgemental - but the same Baptists that would put others down were out drinking and having extramarital affairs. Why is drinking and sleeping around better than being gay? The Baptist Church is a double-standard church! There is no "higher level" sin than another. Sin is sin. I am happy to be in a denomination who now practices what it preaches - and that is love. And Love Thy Neighbor, even if Thy neighor happens to be gay.
Homebody
written by Mark S. Osgatharp, March 17, 2010
Mr./Ms Homebody,

To start with, I didn't suggest throwing stones at anyone, no matter what his sin. Furthermore, your comparison of sexual immorality to leprosy, blindness and poverty is totally bogus, because the one is a behavior to be condemned and the others are circumstances of life to be pitied.

That said, Jesus Christ gave explicit instruction on how to expel an impenitent person out of the church. It is found in Matthew 18. Paul reiterated those instructions in his first letter to the church at Corinth.

Texbeliever makes a good observation, that many churches tolerate one sin but judge others. The solution to that problem is not to condone one sin, but to judge all sin and hold all members of the church - not just leaders as Ameritianity implies - accountable to Bible standards of membership.

For the record, I've had two handles blocked by those in charge of this web-site. Goes to show that their self-vaunted boast of upholding freedom of thought and speech is just so much blowing of hot air.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas
In Defense of Marriage
written by Mark Texas, April 08, 2010
Baptists should stand up in Defense of Marriage. If you go to almost any Baptist Church you can find people who are divorced. Many of these people are remarried to other divorced people. Then they carry on in public unashamed of the adulterous lives that they are living. I have known many divorced preachers, deacons, Sunday School teacher who have been divorced and even worse, divorced and remarried! I have seen women who are divorced teaching Sunday School to little children in Southern Baptist churches. We must take a stand!

The Southern Baptists should flex its collective muscle and tell the legislature that enough is too much. Divorce should be made totally and completely illegal in Texas and the rest of the nation. Once a man and woman are legally married in Texas it should literally mean "Till Death do us Part" no ifs, ands, or buts.

We can and should withdraw our affiliation with any church that admits a divorced person. Divorced people can be forgiven but we must draw the line at letting them share the Lord's Supper with us Christians.
...
written by Zebob, May 26, 2010
Mark Texas, years ago, back in 1981 I was a pretty devout Christian. I went to a small Baptist church in Florida. I don't know how it went down in other churches but in mine at the time a group of divorced people invaded all at once. They came as a group as opposed to individuals so it would be harder to kick them out. Their leader was a supposedly rich guy who dangled the promise of cash, and they immediately grabbed as many positions of power as they could get away with.

I was a single 21 year old man at the time, and this guy and his group tried to convince me through tricks, threats, begging and overall intimidation that I should become his divorced daughter's boyfriend. This girl was in my face all the time and followed me everywhere. As if I was some sort of moral barometer and becoming one with me would mean divorce was okay in every kind of way.

This girl would scream at me in church if I missed a single service. Basically, she and her whole group were just nuts. I ended up losing 30 lbs and had nightmares for years because of the antics of these people. I won't list all the crazy things they did to try to get me to accept this girl, it's too long and rather unbelievable. I stopped feeling safe in church and stopped attending church for good back in 1987.

One other thing this group did was to estabilsh membership in a different kind of church, in this cases Holiness and play one church against the other. Not to mention acting holier than thou.

Since then I have become pretty much an Agnostic. The church I knew back then and grew up in to me died back then and all the churches have in a sense died to me. To quote from the political, I didn't leave the church, it left me. If divorced people want to start their own church fine, that's what the gays do. But they seem to want to not start their own church but to take over established ones.

If you want to ignore the most basic laws of morality while professing to be a Christian or worse a Deacon or Minister, okay, but you sure are presenting a very watered-down practically meaningless version of Christianity. I didn't write the Bible and I did't make the rules and nobody said the life of a true Christian was suppose to be an easy one.

If any kind of group with shall we say a different kind of morality wants to take over the churches, they would probably use tactics similar to these.

Please read our Comments Covenant. Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Baptist Standard. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2010 The Baptist Standard, All Rights Reserved.