Responses to the adoption by the CBF Governing Board of a new hiring
policy and the announcement of the policy’s implementation plan have been
mixed. Most seem willing to accept the
new hiring policy, but many argue that the implementation plan will simply perpetuate
a discriminatory approach in matters of sexuality.
This is a compromise which, in the long run, will make no one
happy. If the present implementation plan
stands, the CBF “denomi-network” must be prepared to face significant
consequences.
First, CBF will continue to lose those young adults who will not
accept a discriminatory sexual ethic. In a letter to the editor of Baptist News Global, divinity student
Adam McDuffie wrote:
“With the implementation procedure
as it currently stands, excluding children of God from serving as they are
called, the CBF is risking an exodus that is already beginning, and may in fact
be irreversible.” The approach adopted
by the CBF Governing Board may well assure that CBF will be, at the most, a two-
generation movement.
Second, implementation of the hiring process will do nothing to
stop the exodus of gifted clergy to other Baptist and non-Baptist groups. They are fed up with the vacillation of
CBF. As I wrote in “The Baptist Diaspora”
last year, “I wonder what CBF
would be like if those who are blessing other denominational groups were
leading healthy CBF churches and ministries. Losing these gifted people
certainly weakens our cause.” My
opinion has not changed as I have seen the continued departure of clergy from
CBF life.
Third, some churches who have been committed to the CBF movement
will leave, especially those churches that have been courageous enough to have
the necessary conversations about sexuality and have become welcoming places
for LGBTQ+ persons. It is understandable
that they will feel betrayed and disrespected and decide to leave. Several churches have already initiated
conversations about departure.
Fourth, CBF is turning its back on parents in our churches who
have LGBTQ+ children. Over the last few
years, a number of friends have come to me and said some variation of this
statement: “My child is gay (or lesbian).
I love my child and I want my church to love my child, too.” Hopefully, they are in a church that does this,
but CBF is saying, “Your child is a second-class citizen when it comes to
significant places of ministry in our organization”
Fifth, in our missionary partnerships, we are abdicating the opportunity
to provide a proactive model in dealing with sexuality. In reality, our mission partners overseas are
simply parroting the exclusive, condemnatory approach to human sexuality that
western missionaries have perpetuated over the years. Our sins have come home to roost in our
missional relationships.
Sixth, with the new plan, the CBF movement has lost integrity. We have continually affirmed the phrase in Galatians
3:28 that we “are all one in Christ
Jesus” (NIV), but we are failing to practice this truth. Our inconsistency dishonors us.
A friend asked me this question: “With our Baptist polity, should
we expect a denomination (or denomi-network) to take a stance that stretches our
churches or should the larger entity just reflect the majority opinion?” I would hope for the former but realize that
the latter is more likely. At the least,
I would hope that the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship would not be a stumbling block
to those who are actively engaged with LGBTQ+ persons. I fear that the present approach does not
further the mission of those churches but inhibits it.
Comments