Southern Baptists leave Alliance
 |
James Joyner | Wednesday, June 16, 2004 |
WaTi — Southern Baptists leave Alliance
The Southern Baptist Convention voted yesterday to sever its 99-year relationship with the Baptist World Alliance on the grounds that it includes a Baptist denomination with openly homosexual members.At its annual meeting in Indianapolis, the Convention voted overwhelmingly to break away from BWA, because the worldwide umbrella group also includes American Baptist Churches USA, which has about 30 congregations that call themselves “welcoming and affirming” to homosexuals.
In a speech to the convention, the Rev. Paige Patterson, president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the Falls Church-based BWA has churches “committed to being a gay-friendly place for churches and people of that disposition.”
Mr. Patterson singled out the Seattle-based Evergreen Baptist Association, among the most liberal of the American Baptist’s 35 regional associations, as being especially soft on homosexuality.
Interesting. I must admit, my mind boggles at the attempt to reconcile fundamental Baptist beliefs with being “a gay-friendly place,” especially if that means being friendly to homosexual practice rather than mere orientation. One might as well have a “sin-friendly place.”
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
Later in the article, it's implied that the homosexuality issue is merely a smokescreen for other disagreements, which presumably wouldn't have been sufficiently objectionable to get enough of the Messengers (delegates) to vote the way the Convention leadership wanted the vote to go.
I have no way of knowing whether that speculation is accurate or not; I'm just providing my interpretation of what the article is saying.
---
Comments are Closed
