Baptist State Convention, They have a very exclusive god. So what?
I heard on the news last night that the Baptist State Convention has decided that if your church isn't Anti-Gay you can't play. I wouldn't have made that decision myself, but I am not a member of the Baptist State Convention. My childhood church might have been a member, but I left there under my own steam and I have no regrets. Here's my opinion of their stance.
The Baptist State Convention is a private club for member only. They can make whatever sort of rule they want and it is ok. Theirs is an exclusive god. If that's what they want to do fine. I see on TV constantly where little boys have club houses where girls are not allowed. The first time I saw it was on The Little Rascals. They aren't breaking any new ground here. Lots of golf clubs won't let you in if you are a woman, a minority, or poor, and that seems to work for them. Occasionally it makes news but it shouldn't. If you aren't allowed to belong to an organization make your own and if you want to exclude those people who excluded you. You are free to do so.
The boy scouts won't allow you in if you are female, gay, or non-christian. Private club for christian strait boys and the men who love them. Sort of like NAMBLA with camping. Whatever floats their boat. Same with the Babtist Convention.
We are surrounded by exclusory rules, I am a member of the YWCA, I am not a woman, and I don't belong to a church, but I can be a member of the YWCA. I teach fencing there. Anyone over the age of 9 can fence with us, but ONLY if you are a member of the YWCA. We are excluding young children and those who aren't willing to fork out $40.00 per year to be a YWCA member. I haven't seen or heard of any protest going on at the Y. Must be ok.
And though I can't speak for the gay population, I have to wonder if they would even want to belong to an organization who openly objects to them. There weren't many jews and gays in the Nazi party if you catch what I'm saying. Bonus! I got to say "Nazi" and "Baptist" in the same blog entry.
Its been a good day.
Comments
It is not about not being accepted by a group and going off to make your own. The problem is that there are people who have grown up in a church belonging to the Convention and now (as they grew up and realized they are gay, but held to the same church, same family) they are being told to go away and that they aren't wanted. The Convention could have passed a policy stating their beliefs... but they went to far with the one they passed. Churches are like families... you shouldn't be able to break them up. Just my opinion though.
Posted by: Matt Hill | November 16, 2005 2:16 PM
In this I agree with you. It was bad form to break up the "Church family" (good way to put it.)
I don't think the Baptist Convention sees these chuches as families. I think they only see these churches as members (or not) of their exclusive club.
Posted by: Woody Cavenaugh | November 16, 2005 2:25 PM
You mean we have to wait til Jake's NINE to do fencing?? I thought it was 8...what a bummer.
Posted by: Becky | November 16, 2005 3:44 PM
Good post. As an recovering Southern Baptist, I wish I could give you a prize for your bonus!
Posted by: Laurie | November 16, 2005 4:17 PM
Biblically speaking, if that matters, the reason this specific private club analaogy doesn't wash really, is that from the beginning the Christian church included all the kinds of people you have spoken about - Jews (who believed in Jesus), Gentiles (non Jews who believed in Jesus), slaves, freemen, men, women, children, and people of every possible racial and ethnic group and language. Biblically, though not always in practice, it has always been inclusive in all these ways, but exclusive as to its center being Jesus Christ as risen and resurrected Lord. And, from the beginning, Jesus, and the Apostles who gave us Jesus' message, taught us what being His disciples looked like - what we could do as his disciples and what we couldn't do as his disciples. So, the battle isn't really over the Baptist Church as a private club or a family, but over foundational principles of historic classic biblical Christianity. It would be much better to just say straight up you were rejecting that. That's the private club you reject. As to family, it's not always "you get to hang out with the family no matter what." But I admit, it must be hard, and sad, and I am sorry. There should not have been so much suspense for so long.
Posted by: Joel Gillespie | November 16, 2005 5:07 PM
I'm going to hate myself in the morning. Small but important point, Joel.
"Jews (who believed in Jesus)"
No such animal. Jews "who believe in Jesus" aren't Jewish. That's not an opinion. It's one of those 613+ rules.
On a larger scale, I'm saddened that any church condemns or excludes anyone for sexual orientation -- after all, what would Jesus say about that?
Posted by: Sue | November 16, 2005 5:35 PM
Sue,
No need to hate yourself in the morning. That "Jews who believe in Jesus" thing is a common bone of contention and I didn't mean to raise it. I simply meant, using the language of Paul (a Jew), that "In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile" etc., the point being that beleif in and salvation in Jesus was open to Jew and Gentile alike. What Jews who believe in Jesus are to be called was not my point. I wasn't meaning to make a point about that. As to what Jesus would say or expect, well, I think he would expect that those who followed him would, due to their love for Him, and ensuing transformation of heart, "go and sin no more." He taught very clearly His father's intention regarding marriage and sexuality, basing it on Genesis 1 and 2. One final thing, no church that I know of excludes for orientation, but for practice. That may seem like splitting hairs, but the difference is significant.
PS
Woody, your comment on Matt's blog was funny. If I could be just half as funny as some of you guys I would be a lot more effective. I'm such a prosaic dud. You crack me up.
Posted by: Joel Gillespie | November 16, 2005 7:16 PM