Background-Materials..

BGAV upholds committee action to dismiss church over ordination
of openly-gay man (Article in the Religious Herald)
By Robert Dilday
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
ROANOKE — The Baptist General Association of Virginia has upheld a committee’s decision
to end the state association’s affiliation with a church which ordained an openly gay man to the
ministry earlier this fall.
In the opening session of its annual meeting Nov. 13, BGAV messengers voted 164-426 against
a motion to refer the decision to a study committee.
In October, the Virginia Baptist Mission Board’s executive committee asked Ginter Park Baptist
Church in Richmond to withdraw its BGAV membership by Dec. 31 after the congregation
ordained an openly gay man in September. The request stipulated that if Ginter Park declined to
withdraw by that date, the BGAV would no longer accept its financial contributions — action
which would essentially end the church’s affiliation with the state association.
At the BGAV meeting,
Richmond pastor Jim
Somerville said dismissal of a
church was too significant to
leave to the executive
committee.
“I believe the executive
committee acted in accordance
with BGAV principles, but this
is a big decision and the
executive committee shouldn’t
make it alone,” said
Somerville, pastor of First
Baptist Church in Richmond.
The BGAV is holding its annual meeting at the Roanoke Civic
He added he didn’t want to
Center.
open a discussion about
homosexuality or church autonomy on the floor of the BGAV.
Instead, he offered a motion to refer the action to a study committee to be appointed by the
BGAV president, which would report at the 2013 annual BGAV meeting.
“I’d like to think that that the newspaper headlines after this meeting will be that we focused on
missions, not that we argued about homosexuality,” he said.
Mark Ross, pastor of Marion (Va.) Baptist Church, supported the motion because Christians
have “been wrong about many things and many of us would not be here today or in our churches
if we let the past determine our future.”
“Let’s look at what God would have us do, not in the past, but in the future,” he said.
Raymond Cady, deacon chair at Ginter Park church, also supported the motion. “We are glad to
be here,” Cady said. “We would like to be part of the great things happening in the life of
Virginia Baptists.”
But Travis Collins, pastor of Bon Air Baptist Church in Richmond, said,“The executive
committee’s action is consistent with what we have done before. … It’s consistent with my
understanding of Scripture and probably with the understanding of the vast majority of Virginia
Baptists.”
Don Davidson, pastor of First Baptist Church in Alexandria, Va., said few people would be
persuaded by a year of study. Instead, it would be a year of “slow drift of being in the news and
being discussed.”
“We are known as a moderate convention, though I’m on the conservative end of that,”
Davidson said. “And I’m at home with that. But this [ordination] is a step too far.”
Carey Snellings, pastor of Hunting Creek Baptist Church in Big Island, Va., said when he
moved to Virginia from Maryland, “I was concerned about being affiliated with the BGAV, for
reasons just like this.”
“I encourage our assembly to realize that the only thing we need to study is God’s holy word,
which is authoritative in this matter,” he said. “I also encourage the assembly to consider the
ramifications on pastors like myself and the churches we lead. I encourage the assembly not just
to defeat but to resoundingly defeat the motion.”
This would be the first time the BGAV has dismissed a church over homosexuality, but it has
addressed the issue in the past. A 1993 resolution called homosexual behavior “sinful and
unacceptable to Christians” and that statement is typically included in the state association’s
identity documents. A report from the BGAV’s Christian life committee which drew the same
conclusion was “commended to the churches” in 1998.
The BGAV’s ties to both the University of Richmond and Averett University were ended over
homosexuality, though Averett’s association was restored last year when the school clarified its
stance in a way the BGAV regarded as compatible with its position.
Ginter Park Baptist Church was organized in 1916 and is also affiliated with the Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists. Another affiliation — the Richmond Baptist
Association — is under study after the RBA appointed a committee Oct. 21 to bring a
recommendation to the group’s spring meeting.
The man ordained Sept. 16, Brandon Scott McGuire, is not on the ministerial staff of Ginter
Park. He reportedly feels called to minister to persons with disabilities and special needs and to
their families, and sought ordination in preparation for that role.
Recommendation Presented from the RBA Ad Hoc Committee and Approved 176 – 158 at
the March 19 Special Meeting
1. We affirm the historic Baptist principles of soul competency, congregational autonomy,
and voluntary connectionalism.
2. We affirm the mission of the Richmond Baptist Association as put forth in its constitution
and by-laws (Article I, Sec. 2 – “The mission of the Richmond Baptist Association is to
serve member churches in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ by encouraging and
facilitating congregational witness, fellowship, and cooperation with others).
3. We recognize that many RBA congregations would not choose to ordain a person who is
homosexual and might wish to discontinue fellowship with Ginter Park Baptist Church.
However, we as an association can continue to work together in the RBA’s common
calling to cooperative ministries.
4. Recommend that Richmond Baptist Association continues to embrace Ginter Park Baptist
Church as a sister church.
Richmond association narrowly votes to retain membership of
church which ordained gay man (Article in the Religious Herald)
By Robert Dilday
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
RICHMOND — By a close margin, the Richmond Baptist Association voted March 19 to retain
the membership of a church which ordained a gay man to the ministry last fall.
The 176-158 vote endorsed a committee’s recommendation that the association “embrace Ginter
Park Baptist Church as a sister church,” while acknowledging that “many RBA congregations
would not choose to ordain a person who is homosexual.”
Last September Ginter Park ordained
Brandon Scott McGuire, a member of the
church who says he feels called to minister to
persons with disabilities and special needs and
to their families. In response, the Baptist
General Association of Virginia ended its
nearly century-old ties to the church late last
year.
But the BGAV’s action didn’t affect Ginter
Park’s affiliation with the RBA, a network of
about 70 congregations in Richmond and
adjacent counties organized in 1951 —
coincidentally in the sanctuary of Ginter Park,
which is one of its founding members. At its
fall meeting last October, the RBA authorized
an 11-member ad hoc committee to consider
whether the association should retain ties to
Ginter Park.
Ginter Park Baptist Church will remain
affiliated with the Richmond Baptist
Association following a March 19 vote.
Affirming principles
The committee’s recommendation, presented March 19 at a meeting called expressly to receive
it, affirmed “historic Baptist principles of soul competency, congregational autonomy and
voluntary cooperation” and the RBA’s mission to spread “the gospel of Jesus Christ by
encouraging and facilitating congregational witness, fellowship and cooperation with others.”
The recommendation acknowledged “that many RBA congregations would not choose to ordain
a person who is homosexual and might wish to discontinue fellowship with Ginter Park Baptist
Church,” but maintained that the association’s churches could nevertheless “continue to work
together in the RBA’s common calling to cooperative ministries” and urged that the association
continue “to embrace Ginter Park Baptist Church as a sister church.”
Committee members were not unanimous in support of the recommendation and one member —
Craig Sherouse, pastor of Second Baptist Church in Richmond — resigned. Sherouse was
among nearly 30 church representatives who spoke for and against the recommendation during
over an hour of discussion at the called meeting.
“Since I opposed it I resigned before a [committee] vote was taken to be freer to speak against
it,” Sherouse said.
Ginter Park has “crossed the membership boundary of maintaining New Testament principles,
and that requires our autonomous response and a stronger one than this recommendation calls
for,” he said. The issue was not about being “welcoming and affirming,” he added. “It is about
ordination.”
If the recommendation were adopted, “enough churches will leave to handicap us,” he warned.
“Other associations are evaluating whether they will continue to cooperate with us.”
Beyond the boundaries
Other speakers echoed his concerns.
“There are some things that are clearly beyond the boundaries and this is one of them,” said
Travis Collins, pastor of Bon Air Baptist Church in Richmond. “We’re not talking about stoning
prostitutes or the woman at the well or gay family members. We’re talking about ordination.
This is clearly beyond the boundaries of historical Christianity."
“We need to distance ourselves
from the decision made by
Ginter Park,”Collins added.
The Richmond Baptist Association’s 70 congregations
minister in a metropolitan region with about 1 million people.
“The issue before us is not
whether we love
homosexuals,” said Jim Booth,
pastor of Staples Mill Road
Baptist Church in Glen Allen.
“Of course we love those who
struggle with their sin. We all
need the same grace. … The
issue is the nature of the gospel
and how we can partner
together. … Even this
discussion tonight shows how
challenging it is if we don’t know what sin is.”
“Has God spoken to the issue of homosexuality?” Booth asked. “The answer is yes, and very
clearly.”
Phil Faig, pastor of Gayton Baptist Church in Henrico, saw a “clash of two values —
faithfulness to biblical principles and church freedom.”
“Freedom is a high value in Baptist life, but freedom is not the end goal,” he said. “Glorifying
God and advancing his mission in our city is the end goal. In this clash of values, the committee
has gotten it wrong and chosen freedom as the higher value.”
Higher priorities
But Sterling Severns, pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church in Richmond, said an even higher
priority compelled RBA churches to remain in fellowship. “On the Thursday preceding Easter
we see Jesus with his disciples … and to my knowledge not one of them was baptized or
ordained. He looked at them and said the way the world will know who you are is how you love
each other, and then he got on his knees and washed all their feet.”
The reason the RBA exists is “diversity coming together and loving children” in places such as
its Camp Alkulana and in Baptist centers, “which shows what loves looks like when people
come together and exude love …,” he said. “I am here by choice and my congregation is here by
choice because we believe there is value in living in the tension and showing the world the love
of Christ even though we don’t see eye to eye.”
Lisa Wells, a member of Grace Baptist Church in Richmond who said she was both an ordained
minister and gay, said she had learned “from the witness of my congregation what being Baptist
is about.”
“I know this is a difficult issue — trust me, I live on the margins; I know what it’s like to be
there. … I encourage us to be bold to live in the mystery of our faith, to trust one another, to do
our work together. This is what I know being Baptist means.”
The issue was not primarily about homosexuality, said Jim Somerville, pastor of First Baptist
Church in Richmond. “We came to talk about a church which has done something most of our
churches wouldn’t do and whether it can be a part of our fellowship,” he said.
Somerville said his own congregation recently ordained a young, biracial woman who grew up
in his church and “the claim of Christ has been clear on her life.”
“Some would tell us that was a clear violation of Scripture and they wouldn’t do it,” he said.
“That’s their prerogative, and we wouldn’t want to tell them who they can and can’t ordain. …
But we did it and I’m proud. The question is, can the RBA still work with us?”
For Mandy England Cole — pastor of Ginter Park for less than two months — the “key issue is
trust.”
“Why would we want to continue to be in partnership with those who call us sinners and in need
of repentance?” she asked. “Why would we want to be in fellowship with those who stand in
judgment? Why would we want to partner with those who believe fundamentally different
things theologically than we do? Because we believe that God is at work in all of us, not merely
in some of us.”
“Somehow in the mystery of all that is, we in our differences can bind together in some form of
fellowship and association and do more than we can do alone, whether we agree or disagree,”
she said. “We want to be part of the good work of the RBA and we want to continue in
faithfulness.”
Robert Dilday ([email protected] ) is managing editor of the Religious Herald.
OPINION: Baptists and Buddhists (Article on the Religious Herald
Website)
By Jim Somerville
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
The Richmond Baptist Association voted March 19 to maintain fellowship with Ginter Park
Baptist Church, a church that recently ordained an openly gay man to the ministry.
The vote was close — very close — but it was enough to establish a simple majority and settle
the question, at least for that night: Ginter Park can stay in the RBA family. How the churches of
the association will respond to that news remains to be seen.
But here’s what I find myself wanting to say: Baptists and Buddhists can
work together if the cause is just and the mission is clear.
Jim Somerville
When Superstorm Sandy pounded the coast a few months ago, for example,
Baptists from Virginia were among those who raced north to provide relief.
But they weren’t the only ones. People of different faiths and people of no
faith at all were working alongside them to provide food, clothing and shelter
for people whose homes had been lost in the storm. They didn’t have to agree
on every point of doctrine in order to work together, just on that point that
insists that people who are hungry and cold need some help.
I remember my own experience with disaster relief after Hurricane Fran hit the North Carolina
coast in 1996. I jumped in a car with a few other Baptist men and drove to Wilmington, where I
ended up washing out empty food containers after hot meals had been delivered. I worked side
by side with a delightful older couple whose views were almost completely opposite of mine. If
we had been in a Baptist meeting, we would have voted differently on every issue.
But we weren’t.
We were in a disaster-stricken area trying to provide relief to people who had almost nothing left
in the world. We didn’t have to agree on everything to agree that what we were doing was both
urgent and important.
I think Sterling Severns, pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church, helped us see that at the RBA
meeting. He said that when he came to Richmond as a pastor nine years ago he asked his new
church why they supported the Richmond Baptist Association. “Because of Camp Alkulana,”
they said. Because every year the RBA takes busloads of boys and girls from inner city
Richmond to spend a week at camp — breathing fresh air, hiking, camping, swimming, and
learning about the love of Jesus in a beautiful natural setting. For those kids, for that week,
heaven really does come to earth. That’s one of the best reasons why Sterling’s church, and my
church, and Ginter Park Baptist Church give money to the Richmond Baptist Association — so
those kids can go to camp. We don’t have to agree with each other on everything to agree that
that’s a good thing, and something worth doing.
So, in spite of all our discussion about homosexuality, and about what the Bible says, and about
what we believe, in the end we voted to keep on working together on what we agree is important
— those kids who go to Camp Alkulana, for instance. And if the Buddhists decide they want to
send us a check?
We’ll take it.
Jim Somerville ([email protected] ) is pastor of First Baptist Church in Richmond.
He blogs at http://jimsomerville.wordpress.com, where this article originally appeared.
OPINION: Are there membership boundaries for the Richmond
Baptist Association? (Article on the Religious Herald Website)
By Craig Sherouse
Thursday, March 21, 2013
At the March 19 meeting of the Richmond Baptist Association concerning Ginter Park Baptist
Church, I spoke in opposition to the recommendation that was passed. The next night Beth
Wright, director of the RBA’s children’s summer camp, spoke at our church. It was a powerful
reminder of why Second Baptist has been a member of RBA since its founding. We share a
common core with the 68 other member congregations, defined in our RBA constitution as
maintaining “New Testament principles.” These core biblical beliefs generate a common
mission — a mission beautifully carried out at Camp Alkulana: Children from some of
Richmond’s most underserved neighborhoods enjoy a camp experience and RBA staff share the
love of Jesus with them.
After hearing Beth, I read the Religious Herald web post by my friend, Jim
Somerville, in which he reflected on the RBA meeting. Jim states concerning
Camp Alkulana: “And if the Buddhists decide they want to send us a check?
We’ll take it.” I agree. But the Buddhists would not have liked Beth’s
presentation. If the Buddhists understand our core, our common mission, why
would they want to send us a check to share Jesus with children? But those
are not the RBA issues of March 19. Those issues might better be framed: “If
a Buddhist temple wants to join the RBA, will we accept them for
membership? Are there any boundaries for membership in the RBA?”
Craig Sherouse
There is a huge difference between partnership and membership. Partnership
comes from shared goals. Membership comes from shared identity, shared core, shared “brand,”
shared New Testament principles. Membership is a privilege and responsibility. And at times,
even in autonomous Baptist life, membership must be superintended by an association in order
to protect the integrity of the core. Otherwise, the mission will absolutely suffer.
I served for a while on the ad hoc committee that brought the recommendation to the RBA.
Since I opposed it, I resigned before the vote was taken in the committee so that I would feel
freer to speak against it at the meeting. As I participated in this committee process, the issues
fell to me under two questions: 1) Does our association have the right and responsibility to
superintend our membership, despite lacking such a bylaw? And, 2) Has Ginter Park’s
ordination service crossed a boundary of acceptable practice that merits a superintending
response?
I do not believe the ad hoc study committee ever seriously considered any superintending
response because they did not believe the association had such a right. The language of
“congregational autonomy,” used in the recommendation, was interpreted to mean that any
member of the RBA could do virtually anything it wanted without any associational
membership consequences.
That is a misunderstanding of Baptist autonomy. Every Baptist association is also fully
autonomous. Going back to the founding of the first associations in our country, most
associations have clear bylaws for superintending their memberships. Lacking any such article
does not mean the RBA cannot superintend membership. Twenty years ago the church I
formerly pastored in another state was censured by our association for ordaining a woman. I
thoroughly disagreed that we had crossed a boundary of acceptable practice, but I never disputed
that the association had the authority to censure.
The superintending resolution my former association passed censured churches that “ordain
women and homosexuals.” It is interesting that both the theological right and the theological left
lump these two ordinations together, whereas those of us in the theological middle see them as
vastly different. Jim Somerville stated at the March 19 meeting, as referenced by the Herald,
that First Baptist recently ordained a young, biracial woman. He inferred that somehow her
ordination could be likewise questionable by some in the RBA. But RBA churches have been
ordaining women for decades. It is a non-issue. Even our theologically right congregations have
not tried to make an issue of women’s ordination. Lumping women’s ordination together with
the ordination of homosexual persons blurs the issues.
But this issue gets lumped together with a lot of things. It is seen primarily through the lens of a
gay family member or friend, or the shifting tide of culture on the issue of gay marriage, or the
civil rights movement, or the deep desire to just “make nice” with everyone. But the ordination
of a non-celibate homosexual person is a biblical/theological issue, not a civil issue. The issue is
not about welcoming, or even affirming. The issue is ordaining. Every ordination I have ever
participated in referenced 1Timothy 3:2, “Now a bishop/overseer [pastor] must be above
reproach.” That is a serious qualification that every pastor struggles to maintain.
Ministerial ordination is a serious, autonomous-congregational function in Baptist life. But listen
to what our RBA bylaws also say: “In an association of churches, bonded by a conscious
cooperative spirit, upon ordination a minister becomes, in a very real sense, a servant of all the
churches.” To be “above reproach” has implications outside of the ordaining congregation and
into the wider Baptist family.
Most of the American denominations have spent decades debating this issue. The United
Methodists are about the only hierarchical denomination that has maintained a “non-ordination”
policy toward non-celibate homosexual persons. But at least these denominational groups gave
this issue the serious biblical/theological attention it deserves. The RBA committee had three
meetings (and never even talked with Ginter Park), and the RBA had a two and a half hour
meeting. And very little of that time, in my opinion, was given to such core issues as New
Testament membership boundaries and the tough-love right and responsibility of our association
to superintend our membership.
I believe Ginter Park’s ordination has seriously challenged the RBA’s common core, defined as
churches maintaining “New Testament principles.” I also believe this ordination has seriously
challenged this cooperative spirit that has bound us together as a missional association. I believe
that the passage of this recommendation may lead to the departure of enough churches from the
RBA as to handicap our cooperative missions work. I also believe that other autonomous
associations with whom the RBA partners are already evaluating whether they will continue to
participate with us.
I personally sought a “third option” for superintending Ginter’s Park’s membership other than
doing nothing or removing them. I felt the recommendation needed to do more than report the
discontent among many churches regarding this ordination. I felt some level of censure and
biblical/theological disagreement should have been voiced. Perhaps we could have even had an
official RBA conversation with Ginter Park. Could there be some kind of probationary
membership status? Our neighboring association, the Dover Baptist Association, requires at
least a year of conversation with a congregation that “deliberately departs from biblical doctrine
and Christian practice as understood by the member churches.” Could Dover, who helped birth
many of our RBA churches, help mentor us through this crisis?
Several other pastors and I initiated a meeting several weeks ago with Ginter Park’s impressive
new pastor, Mandy England Cole, and three sincere, insightful leaders. We openly discussed our
concerns, including the impact this was having on our shared mission. We tried to investigate
options, but no third option seemed to emerge. I still believe there could have been one, but the
ad hoc study committee had no interest in such, anyway.
During a vigorous exchange in our ad hoc RBA study committee I asked the question: “Are
there any boundaries to our membership? If we think we have no right or responsibility as an
association to deal with this issue because of Ginter Park’s ‘congregational autonomy’ are there
any other issues or beliefs that would put a congregation’s membership in question or call for
some action on our part?” There was silence in the committee meeting. I repeated my question,
and finally an answer: “There are 13 congregations that no longer contribute or participate. I
suppose we could at some point decide that they are no longer a part of us.”
So, just perhaps, there are some boundaries to membership, even in the RBA. But they do not
seem to come from our core. They do not seem to emerge from shared identity and “New
Testament principles.” They seem to be much more about partnership — giving money and
coming to meetings. So maybe we should consider a name change to the “Richmond Strategic
Partnership.” And just maybe a Buddhist temple can now not only send a check if they want,
they can even join, as long as they also come to a meeting.
Psalm 62:1 is guiding me through this season of Lent and towards Holy Week: “For God alone
my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation.” Homosexuality and the ordination of
homosexual persons have never been my “hot button” issues, nor are they ones I intend for my
ministry or congregation to become identified by. But this issue came to our RBA family, and so
it came to my church and me. I have said more than I ever wanted to say about it. For now, I
return to silence, prayer and the hope of resurrection salvation.
Craig Sherouse ([email protected] ) is pastor of Second Baptist Church in Richmond.
Comments (1)
Good Points, Craig!
written by Jim Somerville, March 22, 2013
Craig: I think you make some very good points in this article. There IS a huge difference
between membership and partnership, and if the local Buddhist temple wanted to join the RBA,
we would probably have to say no. And, yes, ordaining homosexuals is well outside the
parameters of what most of our member churches would affirm.
But I don't think it is a different issue than the ordination of women. Paul says that women
should keep silent in church, he forbids them to teach men, he says that deacons and elders must
be "the husband of one wife." These are the arguments that have been used for years to forbid
the ordination of women as deacons and pastors. They are the arguments still used by many of
our member churches in the RBA.
And yet you dismiss those arguments by saying that “RBA churches have been ordaining
women for decades,” that it’s a “non-issue.” For some of our churches it is, but for others it is
not. And yet those churches have chosen to remain in the Richmond Baptist Association because
they value what we can do together even if we don’t agree with each other on everything.
That’s the point I was trying to make on Tuesday night. I talked about how my brother and I—
who disagree with each other on almost every religious and political issue—can still work
together to care for my dying father. We do it because we’re family, and because we love my
dad more than we disagree with each other. And even if my brother were gay (which he is not), I
think we could work together.
I hope that will be true for the Richmond Baptist Association, Craig. And for you, and for me.
There’s a lot of Kingdom work to be done. It’s going to take all of us working together to do it.




+3
OPINION: Drawing boundaries (Article on the Religious Herald
Website)
By Justin Joplin
Thursday, March 28, 2013
A story is told in my family about my grandfather, a lover of old time gospel music and, in an
era before paid music ministers, the song leader at his rural North Carolina Baptist church.
Music was such an important part of his life, when he passed away back in 1993 our family saw
fit to have the words “Make a joyful noise unto the Lord” engraved on his headstone. As a good
and dedicated lay leader, he was one of the people who inspired me to follow Jesus.
Grandpa served his congregation faithfully, but there was one role in the church my grandfather
never got to fill. He was never allowed to be a deacon. Why? Because he was on his second
wife. A widower at 35, he remarried a few years after his first wife passed away from a
childbirth-related illness. His fellow church members determined that, based on the counsel of I
Timothy 3:12 — “Let deacons be husbands of only one wife” — he was ineligible for election.
When my father tells me this story, I scratch my head in confusion. To my
contemporary ears, the behavior of my Baptist forebears sounds quaint and
even irrational. But they based their decision on their understanding of New
Testament principles.
Justin Joplin
I call this odd bit of family history to mind whenever our Baptist family
begins debating what the Bible might say to us about controversial issues like
homosexuality. Grandpa’s story is a helpful reminder that, even if Baptists
share the same scriptural roadmap, diverse understandings of Scripture find
us drawing lines in different places.
That’s the attitude I and others brought into meetings of the Richmond Baptist Association’s
recently convened ad hoc committee. Our committee was created to consider and craft an
associational response to the recent ordination by Richmond’s Ginter Park Baptist Church of
Scott McGuire, who is homosexual. As the junior member of the committee, I was eager to
provide input and honored to serve alongside experienced ministers and lay leaders. We met
with the understanding that our work could easily become the stuff of headlines. The
recommendation we presented, which provides for continued fellowship between the RBA and
Ginter Park, narrowly passed one week ago. Now the headlines have been being written.
One headline that caught my attention came from an article by Craig Sherouse, a fellow RBA
pastor and committee member. Sherouse asks, “Are there membership boundaries for the
Richmond Baptist Association?” His question is a testament to his thoughtful service to the
committee. As one of very few members of the 11-person committee who could not affirm the
committee’s recommendation, Sherouse provided a needed challenge for the team as we
considered a course of action.
I didn’t always agree with what he had to say, but I recognized value in his questions and
objections, and I usually wanted to hear more from him. Regrettably, unavoidable scheduling
conflicts significantly limited his presence and participation with the committee. Sherouse’s
answer to the question — that the committee never accepted that the RBA has a right to
superintend its relationships — comes from a limited perspective of the work of the committee.
His opinion also hints at a conviction that if he and I draw different boundaries, I am somehow
guilty of drawing no boundaries at all. This unfortunate fallacy isn’t new to the homosexuality
debate, but it has certainly taken root there.
If a person supports marriage rights for same-sex couples, they may be asked if they likewise
support marriage between a man and a horse. Supporting the ordination of a person like Scott
McGuire will draw questions about whether one favors ordaining unashamed adulterers and
polygamists. Keeping a church like Ginter Park in the family gives some the impression that it’s
only a matter of time before the “B” in RBA comes to stand for “Buddhist” as much as Baptist.
While accusing others of an “anything goes” attitude is unhelpful, the question of how an
association like the RBA should superintend its relationships is both valid and important.
Contrary to Sherouse’s assertion, I fully believe RBA can and should draw boundaries around
its relationships. I have no reason to doubt my fellow committee members share this conviction.
Rather than drawing no line at all, the committee proposed drawing the association’s line to the
right of millions of brothers and sisters in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America,
Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Alliance of Baptists
and others. Rather that declaring that anything goes, the committee proposed drawing a line near
to that of brothers and sisters of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, which, though refusing to
hire homosexual persons to serve as staff members or missionaries, maintains healthy
relationships with its few member churches that have chosen to ordain homosexuals. When the
votes were counted, the association affirmed the ad hoc committee in the location of our line.
For some RBA congregations, the challenge of joining with Ginter Park in efforts such as giving
school supplies to needy children in Jesus’ name will be too great to overcome. For those who
will remain committed to the association’s Christian mission, thoughtful dialogue about setting
membership boundaries would be a welcome byproduct of the decision to keep Ginter Park in
the family. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to craft a more thorough response to
Sherouse’s question.
What if a congregation were found to discriminate against would-be members on the basis of
race, ethnicity, gender, social status or mental ability? What if a congregation became associated
with a fringe religious movement that accepted a figure besides Jesus as Lord, or writings other
than the Bible as Holy Scripture? What if a congregation became a hateful public spectacle like
Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church or the Koran-burning Dove World Outreach Center of
Gainesville, Fla.? What if a congregation was discovered to have a long and systemic record of
covering up sexual abuse? What if a congregation has long since given up participation in
associational life? What if a congregation simply wants to leave?
In any of these scenarios, I would support drawing a boundary between my association and the
offending congregation. I would also be interested in entering a conversation about conditions
that could lead to reconciliation.
The day after the RBA voted to continue working with Ginter Park, I attended a gathering at
another of the association’s churches, South Richmond’s Jahnke Road Baptist. At that gathering
we heard a report from Wesley Garrett, RBA’s community missionary at its South Richmond
Baptist Center. Garrett spoke about numerous issues related to poverty in the city, and bore
witness to the transformations that are happening thanks to associational partnerships. As he
spoke, he repeated, six wonderful words again and again: “But God was still at work.”
Less than 24 hours removed from the most packed and intense associational meeting I have ever
attended, I needed to hear these words. I need to connect with folks from other Baptist
congregations in the name of Jesus and in the spirit of his mission. We’re not all the same, but
we share the conviction that we accomplish more together than we do alone. We don’t draw our
lines in the same places, but God is still at work.
Justin Joplin ([email protected] ) is pastor of Westover Baptist Church in Richmond.
EDITORIAL in the Religious Herald: Rightly dividing the word of truth
By Jim White
Thursday, March 21, 2013
As you can read here, the Richmond Baptist Association voted on Tuesday evening, March 19,
2013, “to embrace Ginter Park Baptist Church as a sister church.” As many have pointed out,
the vote was not a ringing endorsement of ordaining homosexuals, nor an affirmation of
homosexuality in general. And, as others have pointed out, it was. At least it was enough of an
affirmation to be understood as a watershed moment for the RBA.
Specifically, the vote was whether or not to continue the long relationship between the RBA and
Ginter Park, or to follow the example of the Baptist General Association of Virginia and
withdraw fellowship. But the vote involved much more than the inclusion or exclusion of an
individual church.
Many who voted that night saw the issue to be a referendum on local church
autonomy. It wasn’t. No one disputes the right of Ginter Park to take the
action it did. The question was, having ordained a homosexual (in accord
with its autonomous right), would the other churches in the association decide
that action was acceptable for a member church or not.
Some said churches in the association have no business judging another
church’s action. Yet, unless they believe anything is acceptable, even they
must have a boundary line somewhere.
Jim White
Others say the vote was about neither homosexuality nor autonomy, but about
biblical integrity. They cite scriptures that clearly prohibit homosexuality.
Since we all agree that we routinely ignore certain prohibitions in Leviticus, like eating shrimp
and lobster (11:10) and bacon (11:8), or having a tattoo — even a nice little heart that says
“Mother” (19:28), or wearing polyester (19:19) to name just a few, I won’t even bring up
Leviticus 20:13. But New Testament passages like Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, that
were written specifically to the Christian church are more difficult to overlook.
For many who voted that night it was not a question of whether we should love all people, or
grant local church autonomy, but whether to simply ignore what the Bible so clearly says. But
the interpretive task is not merely to ask, “What does the Bible say,” but also “What does the
Bible mean?” This has been a dilemma the church has faced from its very inception. This
remains the challenge of “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).
In the days of the Apostle Paul, some were saying, “The scriptures clearly teach that those who
follow God — at least the male followers — are to be circumcised.” In fact, they produced from
Scripture a whole list of things that one had either to do or refrain from doing. The Jerusalem
council of Acts 15 is a record of the church leaders getting together to discuss not just what the
scriptures say, but what they mean. They came to the conclusion that some things should be
ignored, while other things should not.
After listening to different viewpoints, James, the Lord’s half-brother and the leader of the early
church, said, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles
who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food
polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood”
(Acts 15:19-20).
One thing is clear about this decision, however. They did not ignore Scripture. Rather, they used
Scripture to arrive at a new understanding of what the scriptures mean. (See verses 15-18.)
What I mean to point out is that the church has always lived with this tension between knowing
clearly what the Bible says and understanding what the Bible means. Usually they are one and
the same. Sometimes, they are not. The history of the church teaches us that the Bible is truly
inspired. The Spirit who inspired it, and the word he inspired, are dynamic enough to meet the
challenges of change. Just when critics have predicted it is no longer relevant, the Bible flames
again into a fire that lights and purifies.
What is needed now are those who will engage in serious and thoughtful inquiry and let the
Spirit and the scriptures be our guides. We live in a changing culture, but if the church simply
affirms the whims of culture we have nothing of substance to say. On the other hand, God has
often used cultural changes to nudge the church to a fresh understanding of who he is and what
he wants for our world.
What is also needed are those who will be respectful of opinions and positions with which they
disagree. I hope we can avoid a disruptive and destructive mindset that says, “If they don’t do
things the way I think they should be done, I’ll leave!” We have seen this unfortunate attitude in
both conservative and progressive churches. Still, being respectful of differing positions means
we must recognize that for some, the boundary line of what can be accepted in sister churches
has been reached. This does not make them in any way substandard. It just means they are
exercising their autonomy.
I must confess that for a time I was angry at Ginter Park’s choice to make this an issue rather
than quietly withdraw without forcing a showdown. I saw withdrawal as the honorable and
loving thing to have done, choosing to spare their sister churches the pain this vote has and will
likely yet bring to the association. I believe now that sooner or later the matter would have
surfaced anyway.
One thing I believe is sure. We haven’t seen the last of this issue so we’d better prepare
ourselves for healthy deliberation.
Jim White ([email protected] ) is executive editor of the Religious Herald.
OPINION: A new commandment (Article on the Religious Herald Website)
By Sterling Severns
Thursday, May 09, 2013
Jesus makes his way around the entire room. He looks at each of us with the eyes of redemption
and humbly bathes our feet. Some of us attempt to protest but none walk away without having
been cleansed.
I can’t imagine how difficult it must be for him. The irrevocable action reaches its conclusion.
The crisis in the garden, and ensuing crucifixion, is at hand. His heart is broken and soon his
body will be broken. Within moments of standing up he predicts our betrayal. We ask him,
“Who would do such a thing?”
Fear has a way of changing us and can make us stoop to places we promise
ourselves we will never go. The first of an eventual many abandons ship. We
are unravelling.
The door shuts behind the scapegoat. Jesus looks at the 11 remaining and
makes his expectations known: “A new command I give you: Love one
another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this
everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John
13:34-35).
Sterling Severns Almost within the same breath he predicts our denial of discipleship. We
respond to foot washing with betrayal. Our response to the love
commandment is abandonment. The predictions, each and every one of them, become a reality
within the span of just a few short days.
In this Easter season we are reminded of other predictions that will come to fruition. The one
who was betrayed and broken returns. He spends 40 days seeking us out — embracing,
forgiving. He walks through walls and tells us not to be afraid anymore. He offers us shalom
and reminds us of what we are capable of. He brings us back into the fold, the flock, the boat
(pick your metaphor). He looks at each of us with the eyes of redemption and urges us to
remember what he has done for us.
Prior to his ascension he promises us that a unifying advocate will come and give us what we
need to share the story through word and action. In the meantime, he asks us to wait and remain
united. The day he will leave us again, we will stand together just as we had on that night when
he cleansed our feet. He will offer us words of comfort and encourage us to face the future
without fear.
He knows us too well. He knows that we are scared and full of self-doubt. He knows that the
world expects us to turn on one another. He knows that we have a tendency to cling to our
truths a bit too tightly and we can justify just about anything if it helps us to remain in control.
We’ve been playing that game since he first breathed life into us in the garden.
“Soon,” he says, “my Spirit will come.” The advocate will pick us up, dust us off and breathe
life into us again. The Spirit will take us into the land of the gentiles and that which is
considered unholy will soon be made holy. Yes, the Spirit will come and that which has become
unraveled will be bound back together again.
In these days leading up to Pentecost, I think those of us in the Richmond Baptist Association
and the Baptist General Association of Virginia would be wise to put our pointing fingers away.
Our hands are not meant to resemble guns and we are giving the world what they expect of us.
Let’s stop trying to throw others out of the circle or making threats to remove ourselves from
the family or both. Let us wait together in this season of resurrection and remember that our
Redeemer knows what we are capable of:
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one
another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Sterling W. Severns ([email protected] ) is pastor of Tabernacle Baptist Church in
Richmond.
A Biblical/Theological Statement on “Sexuality and Ordination ”Prepared and Presented
by Deacon Gaven Schofield to the May 28 Joint Meeting of the Deacons and Missions
Council (used in the meeting for reference only)
Scripture: We believe that God’s Holy Bible is the ultimate authority for our Christian faith
journey. We believe that Scripture is to be interpreted dynamically and freshly, informed by the
Spirit through our personal walk with Christ. Although certain passages should be considered
through the light of historical context, popular culture should never be the measure of truth. (Is
40:8; Ps 119:105; He 4:12; 2 Tim 3:16)
Sin: We believe God has a good purpose for our lives, however, all humanity by the age of
moral accountability has rebelled against that purpose. This rebellion creates separation from
God that humans are unable to restore through our own actions. Separation from God, the
Creator and Sustainer of Life leads to Death - physically, morally, and spiritually. (Is 53:6; Ro
3:23, 6:23)
Grace: We believe Got earnestly desires fellowship with every individual. We believe Jesus
offers healing in our broken relationship with God to all those who acknowledge their sin and
ask forgiveness. There is no sin that cannot be forgiven by the Grace offered through Jesus
Christ. An honest desire to avoid sin ongoing is a true expression of personal repentance and
Grace received. (Jn 3:16; Ro 5:8, 5:20; Ja 1:21)
Sexuality: We believe God created different genders intentionally, to help teach intimacy and
love. We believe that sexuality is a critically important aspect of creation, highlighted by the
fact that its misuse is the only basis Jesus offered as a cause for divorce. We believe that
denying the intentional separation of genders in sexual intimacy is an act of human rebellion
against God’s good purpose in creation, just as we believe denying the protective bonds of
marriage in expressing sexual intimacy is rebellion against God. (Ge 1:27, 2:24; Mt 5:32; Ro
1:26-28; He 13:4).
Ordination: We believe Ordination is a special recognition of those who have (1) been called
by God for vocational service in the building of the body of Christ, and (2) demonstrated the
characteristics a life born again in the fullness of Christ. Those who would be ordained must not
only have the skills to perform the ministry task they have been called to, they must live a
lifestyle worthy of the upward calling of Christ, including putting away the old sinful self and
living a life of purity and Holiness. (Ac 6:3, 13:2-3; Ep 4:11-12; Ph 3:13-14)
Fellowship: We believe that every Baptist church has the right to make their own decisions
regarding their congregation. We welcome the opportunity to join with fellow Christian
believers for the work of proclaiming the good news of Jesus and helping build God’s Kingdom
on earth. We believe we must be mindful of formal associations with other groups because of
the manner in which it reflects on our congregation and our witness to the world - we are called
to be salt of the earth, and must not lose our saltiness. Therefore we believe we must diligently
guard against any situation that would suggest we condone behaviors or actions that are sinful to
God. (Mt 5:13; 1 Co 5:11-13; Ep 4:14-16; 1 Jn 1:6-7)
Article in the June RBA Newsletter, “Transformed!” – “RBA Seeks Assistance From
Third-Party Mediator”
Following the Special Called Associational Meeting of March 19 there has already been
considerable impact upon the resources required to honor the Association’s calling to minister to
the under-resourced of our city. The following five churches totaling nearly 4,000 members and
in excess of $48,000 in missions and ministry support have withdrawn from the Association:
_ New Bridge _ New Canaan International
_ Oak Grove _ Staples Mill Road
_ Webber Memorial
Two more churches are in active conversations with a sister association regarding changing
affiliation from the RBA. One former RBA church that has remained very loyal to the RBA by
continuing to contribute to our calling even after joining another association is also considering
whether to continue to do so. Eight more member churches are reviewing whether or not to
continue their affiliation with the Richmond Baptist Association. Some are escrowing funds
while they deliberate.
If all of these churches remove themselves from our Association the impact upon mission
efforts equals 13,455 members from whom we draw volunteers and $239,800 in ministry
support. These figures represent nearly 25% of our associational membership and more than
38% of our missions support.
We are a fractured family whose faithfulness to her calling is threatened! Like any family in
crisis, we need help to resolve the dilemma in which we find ourselves and to restore our
family’s health.
At the urging of our Director of Missions at the recent Executive Council Meeting on May
16th, the body approved the following recommendation:
The Director of Missions recommends the engagement of the Center for Congregational Health
under the direction of Dr. Bill Wilson to act as an impartial, third-party mediator to engage the
association in a process to enhance our ability to work together collaboratively and to minimize
the impact of our current circumstances in order to more effectively accomplish our calling to
missions and ministry going forward. The investment in this process is estimated by Dr. Wilson
(Executive Director of the Center for Congregational Health) to range between $8,000.00 and
$15,000.00.
This recommendation will be funded out of existing reserve funds to minimize further
impact upon budgeted dollars. The Center is well respected throughout Baptist circles and
beyond! They have done excellent work in opening doors of hope and wholeness with faith
communities since 1992. A number of our churches have been served or are currently involved
with Center staff.
As we take this opportunity to invest in our family in a meaningful way, we will be
modeling for our churches and their family’s healthy steps in repairing brokenness in their own
families. This approach is an investment in a better outcome and a brighter future for the
mission and ministries of our Association than we might otherwise expect to experience without
help.
This investment in the process that the Center will design with us is one that we cannot
afford NOT to make. The cost of doing nothing has already been graphically displayed above.
Please add the Center and the forthcoming process to your prayers!
If you would like to know more about the Center for Congregational Health or Dr. Bill
Wilson, please email [email protected] or call 356-9663!
RBA Director of Missions, Rev. Mike Robinson’s Article in the July RBA Newsletter,
“Transformed!”
Greetings All:
At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 16 the RBA Executive Council favorably
received a recommendation to engage the Center for Congregational Health to come alongside
the RBA to help us “invest in our family in a meaningful way,…modeling for our churches and
their families healthy steps in repairing brokenness. This approach is an investment in a better
outcome and a brighter future for the mission and ministries of our Association than we might
otherwise expect to experience without help.”
The urgency for moving ahead with a mediated discernment process was underscored this
week with the withdrawal of yet another congregation from the RBA. In a letter from the first
non-African American ethnic congregation to take this action, Rev. Lazarus Chua stated the
position of the Chinese Baptist Church of Richmond when it voted overwhelmingly to withdraw
from the RBA. The Chinese Baptist Church of Richmond is the sixth church to officially end its
affiliation with the Richmond Baptist Association due to the recent stance of the Association on
homosexuality and ordination and the identity that that stance creates for the Association.
The Center for Congregational Health will create opportunities for interactive engagement
with a team of consultants “who facilitate healthy process and work with groups and individuals
like us to make healthy choices.” They “do not do the work of telling an organization what to do
to solve problems.” Their role will be to create healthy process to help the RBA discern God’s
call through a multi-phase endeavor designed specifically for the RBA in partnership with the
Executive Council and participants in the process.
Phase One of the process – Discover – will entail a day of constructive conversation
facilitated by the Center to discover various options and possibilities to move the ministry of the
Richmond Baptist Association forward. In this phase each congregation will be invited to have
representation from one clergy person and one lay person. Typically, the day will begin at 10
am, with closure by 3 pm and will include lunch. The desired outcome for the day is to discover
options and possibilities for creating a positive future for the Association. This phase will allow
for many options to be articulated and examined, culminating with a process to identify the most
promising opinion(s) that could generate a design for the immediate future of the RBA. A final
report of the day’s events and recommendation(s) will be provided by the Center.
Phases Two – Design – and Three – Implementation – will be based on the outcomes of Phase
One. Phase Two, generally speaking, will create a recommendation or recommendations based
on Phase One and will be followed in Phase Three by Center consultants working with the
Executive Council in creating structures and processes needed for the implementation of
recommendations as approved by the Association.
At this juncture, I implore all of our church families to prepare to sit down with each other
with the help of the Center for Congregational Health to discern God’s calling for our
Association for the days ahead. I thank you for the patience and restraint with which you have
acted thus far and ask that you continue in that spirit to give time for His Spirit to work with us
through the process envisioned by the Center. Make no assumptions about outcomes at this
point and be prepared for honest and open dialogue tempered by care and compassion. I know
that you already join me in continuing to pray for God’s leadership throughout the days ahead.
As
throughout our history, may our Association be found faithful to the unique calling He has
placed upon us to minister transformationally to the city He loves and to the under-resourced
people He desires to include in His family both now and eternally!
A Report on the Special Meeting of the Richmond Baptist Association
Held Saturday, August 17, 9:00 – 3:00 at Second Baptist Church
By Mike Salt and Craig Sherouse
(placed at the Church Welcome Center on August 25)
This meeting was called by the Executive Committee of the RBA because of the division
in our Association. This division is the result of the RBA’s very close vote in March to continue
to “embrace Ginter Park Baptist Church as a sister church.” That vote was in response to Ginter
Park’s ordination to the ministry last fall of a non-celibate homosexual man. Because of this
ordination, the Baptist General Association of Virginia removed Ginter Park from membership
at our annual meeting last November.
The RBA vote was precedent-setting: We are the first Baptist association within the old
“Southern Baptist world” that has not removed from membership a gay-ordaining church.
According to Mike Robinson, RBA Director of Missions, ten churches have left the RBA or are
in the process of leaving. Other churches are considering leaving, making the total between 15 –
18 churches. Our Deacons held four discussions in successive meetings last spring. A motion
was made to recommend to the church that we withdraw from RBA, continue to fund directly
the three ministry centers and Camp Alkulana, and encourage our members to continue to
volunteer at these. After an in depth discussion with Rev. Robinson on May 28th about the work
of the RBA and their situation the deacons voted to table the motion pending the outcome of a
Special Meeting of the RBA which was finally held August 17.
Around thirty churches participated August 17, which is roughly half of the remaining
RBA churches. Each congregation was represented by a clergy and a lay person. The meeting
was facilitated by Bill Wilson of the Center for Congregational Health and two of his associates.
As you know, Bill facilitated the completion of our 2020 Vision process and is a superb
facilitator. The purpose of the meeting was “to create options and possibilities for a positive
future for RBA outcome.”
Bill challenged us from Philippians 2:3-4 to “do nothing from selfish ambition, but in
humility to regard others as better” than ourselves, and “to look out for the interests of others.”
He challenged us to re-frame our current conundrum and turn from the symptoms to the causes –
our “meta-story.” He challenged us to think together about how the RBA can “build a positive
future” and “respond to God’s calling.”
Bill soberly reminded us that his group had confirmed that no Christian
group/denomination has successfully addressed the issues of homosexuality and gay-ordination.
Every group that has addressed these issues has experienced serious division. He challenged us
to be the first success story and to teach others how to do this. He reminded us that this issue
will not go away and that “complex issues require complex solutions.” After his associates
presented some guidelines for healthy conversations and other materials, we began facilitated
discussions around ten tables of six persons. The process involved table discussion, report outs,
and placing stickers to “vote” on our top picks of the presenting issues and strategies for
improving on these issues. The two top “critical uncertainties” or major issues that we agreed
the RBA is facing are:
1. The RBA has a crisis of identity and mission.
2. The RBA faces dramatic losses of finances, churches and volunteers.
An underlying critical uncertainty that was voiced in several ways is that associations are in
decline, anyway. Like most associations, RBA has seen declining involvement and funding for a
number of years and there may not be enough commitment to save RBA. These discussions
consumed most of the time and energies of the meeting.
In the afternoon we discussed possible strategies for addressing these critical
uncertainties. The ideas were all over the map, from totally dissolving the RBA to clarifying
what we mean by member churches following “New Testament” principles (the only
membership statement in the RBA Constitution). Some discussion tables expressed little interest
in trying to “superintend the theology of other congregations.” The two ideas that seemed to
have the most passion behind them were:
1. Change the RBA from a “membership” organization based on “New Testament
principles” to a “partnership” organization based on shared mission (somewhat like
Habitat for Humanity).
2. Form a 501©3 organization that would continue the three ministry centers and Camp
Alkulana and dissolve the rest of the RBA.
It is our opinion that one of these two ideas may be agreed on as a strategy if there is a second
meeting of this facilitation process.
The Center for Congregational Health will compile the results of this meeting (the
Discovery meeting) and send a report in the next few weeks. The next steps, should we choose
to take them, would involve Bill Wilson returning for two more meetings:
1. The Design meeting to clarify strategies
2. The Implementation meeting to actually implement the strategies.
In our estimation these two phases will take between 6 and 9 months to complete depending on
participation for the RBA member Churches. The RBA Executive Council will be deciding soon
whether to continue this process.
On September 3 our Deacons are having another special meeting to discuss this process and
decide whether they have a recommendation for the church at our October 6 Business Meeting.
A Portion of the RBA Director of Missions, Rev. Mike Robinson’s Article in the September
RBA Newsletter, “Transformed!”
You may be asking, out of your awareness of the Restoration Meeting held with the Center
for Congregational Health at Second Baptist on Saturday, August 17th, “Are we there yet?” My
answer: “No, not yet, but we are closer now than we were!” “How so?” you ask! A group of
nearly sixty of us met and talked about issues that we have not talked about together in that mix
before. We determined several things:
• The RBA is currently unclear about its identity.
• The RBA needs to define “membership.”
• The RBA needs to define “partnership.”
• The RBA highly values its mission and ministry through its centers and camp.
Part of my takeaway from the meeting, Even in advance of the formal report that will be
generated by Dr. Bill Wilson’s team, is that there is relatively strong agreement regarding these
several determinations. My immediate inclination is that as many of us as can need to go to
work quickly to clarify the areas that are currently unclear. In that process we will deal with
issues that foster the lack of clarity.
Deacon Recommendation to Withdraw from Membership
in the Richmond Baptist Association (bulletin insert on 9-8)
Last fall Ginter Park Baptist Church in Richmond ordained an actively homosexual man to gospel
ministry. This action by Ginter Park Church created a dilemma for The Baptist General Association
of Virginia, the Richmond Baptist Association, and for Second Baptist Church. The Baptist General
Association of Virginia voted at their fall, 2012 meeting to remove Ginter Park Church from
membership.
The Richmond Baptist Association (RBA) chose to appoint a committee to study the situation and
come up with a solution. The committee’s solution was to “continue to embrace Ginter Park Baptist
Church as a sister church,” under the autonomy of the local church banner. The resolution was voted
on at a special meeting of the RBA and passed by a 52% - 48% margin. In the eyes of many
churches, this vote is saying ordaining an active homosexual is not a problem. Many churches feel it
is a problem and have chosen to leave the RBA. Several other churches are currently contemplating
leaving.
As you might expect, our church is very involved in the situation because of our commitment to the
RBA and its Richmond area ministries. Our Church supports the RBA financially ($21,000 last year)
and many of our members do volunteer work in the various RBA centers and Camp Alkulana.
The deacons of SBC have been discussing the matter since before the RBA spring vote. The deacons
see the values of the RBA ministries to our community and want them to continue, but in the light of
what God’s Word says about homosexuality, sin, church leaders and leadership (ordination), what
do we do?
After several meetings, hours of discussion, study and prayer the majority of the deacons feel that
the following motion is the correct course for our Church. The deacons will make this motion at the
upcoming Church Business meeting on October 6th.
Second Baptist Church should:
1)
Withdraw its membership from the Richmond Baptist Association;
2)
Continue to financially support certain Richmond Baptist Association ministries through
financial contributions that are dedicated exclusively to these ministries: South Richmond Ministry
Center, Church Hill Ministry Center, Oregon Hill Ministry Center, and Camp Alkulana; and
3)
Encourage members of Second Baptist Church to continue their involvement with these four
Richmond Baptist Association ministries.
It is the deacons’ intent to present the motion at the October 6th Church business meeting. There will
be limited time to discuss the matter at that time; therefore another special church wide meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday night, October 29th. The 29th meeting will be devoted entirely to this issue.
This schedule should give our members time to investigate the issues and pray about what God
wants for our church.
This is a decision for the Membership of Second Baptist to make.
Later this week various supporting documents will be available on the church website to help you
understand the complexities of this issue.
Portion of Dr. Sherouse’s “Pastor’s Paraphrase” Ideal Article from 9-11
The bulletin insert from the Deacons was a jarring reality check for most of us. It
presented their recommendation that we leave the Richmond Baptist Association (RBA) over
their vote last March to “continue to embrace Ginter Park Baptist Church” in RBA membership,
despite Ginter Park’s ministerial ordination of a non-celibate homosexual man. The
recommendation will be presented and briefly discussed at the October 6 Business Meeting and
then fully discussed and voted on at a special Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 29. It also
affirms that we would continue to fund directly the four major ministries of the RBA and
encourage our members to volunteer. We would effectively move from a “membership”
relationship to a “missional collaboration” with the RBA’s three Ministry Centers and Camp
Alkulana. We would in effect double the amount of funding going directly to these ministries by
giving the same offerings.
The issue of homosexuality and particularly the ministerial ordination of non-celibate
homosexuals has been the “tar baby” of the Church for the last three decades. We cannot ignore
or get this issue off our hands. Most major denominations, except for the Baptists, Catholics and
Orthodox, have had their annual or semi-annual meetings consumed with debating this issue.
The Methodists, Catholics, Assemblies of God, some Presbyterian groups and the Baptists have
not affirmed such ordinations. To my knowledge, no Baptist convention or union in the world
has endorsed such ordinations, and the RBA is the first Baptist Association within the old
“Southern Baptist realm” that has not disfellowshiped a church that performed such an
ordination. So, what RBA has done is unprecedented among our kind of Baptists. What our
Deacons are proposing is consistent with the BGAV and the larger Baptist family as well as
these above mentioned denominations. Around 15 other RBA congregations are considering
withdrawing or have already done so.
For thirty years the Church has debated about homosexuality along the lines of
“welcoming and affirming.” No one, except some eccentrics, debates that the Church must be
welcoming of all people. That is a “for-granted” for Second Baptist. Everyone is welcome. We
are seeking to be a “loving community.” We are all to be welcomed as Christ welcomed us
(Rom. 15:7).The Deacons’ recommendation clarifies, though, that while welcoming of
homosexuals, we as a congregation are not affirming of non-celibate homosexuals being
ordained and serving as ministerial leaders – “welcoming but not affirming.” The problem is
that those who both welcome and affirm (ordination and marrying homosexuals) interpret not
affirming as being unwelcoming. That means that “welcoming but not affirming” congregations
must work harder than most to extend hospitality, but also to clarify the biblical issues.
For me the biblical issue is this: You simply cannot rectify Romans 1:18-32 and 1
Timothy 3:2a with the ordination of non-celibate homosexuals. The issue is not even sexual
orientation, it is non-celibate single adult behavior. Unmarried clergy must be celibate to be
“above reproach,” and only a handful of Baptist churches recognize the marriage of
homosexuals as biblically acceptable. And Baptist ordination, though a local church function, is
meant to be acceptable to the whole Baptist community.
Let’s please be clear about the Deacons’ recommendation: It deals solely with the issue
of “not affirming” ordination. The issue is about ministerial leadership, not whether or not we
will welcome anyone who comes to church. But such a stance, should we take it, calls us to
work harder than most to be even more welcoming. Let’s start with being careful how we talk
about this issue. Let’s “speak the truth” as we understand it “in love.”
It is very possible that our Deacons’ recommendation may become moot on October 20
when the RBA meets. A recommendation will be presented by a committee, of which I am a
member, to try to resolve this matter. At this time, our Deacons’ recommendation is serving as a
model of a possible solution. I pray that we as a congregation and Association will find our way
to a healthy, loving, biblical stance of “welcoming but not affirming.”