Conclusion

On March 5, 1999, the University of Richmond, a Virginia Baptist School, “added sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy.”  According to an ABP article: “The rewritten policy, approved by trustees…prohibits discrimination of gays and lesbians in recruiting and promotion of students, faculty and staff.”  While Virginia Baptist convention leaders “expressed regret at the university’s decision,”  University trustee Clint Hopkins said he voted for the policy.  Hopkins is a former president of the Baptist General Association of Virginia and member of the CBF’s Coordinating Council.  According to Hopkins:

Jesus never made sexual habits an issue with his followers.  We want to be as much like Jesus as possible, so it is not proper for us to give too much attention to sex in deciding who is in and out of the Kingdom.[i]      

While increasing numbers of Southern Baptist state conventions are being forced to deal with the issue of homosexuality and churches that embrace homosexual behavior, CBF has not.  Instead, CBF recently declared that it is being falsely accused “of promoting a gay-lesbian agenda.”[ii]  And while it is certainly acknowledged that everybody supportive of the CBF does not believe that homosexual behavior is Biblically acceptable, it is equally true that the CBF has intentionally defined itself so broadly and worked so hard to be “inclusive” of virtually any moral, social or theological position, that those who are indeed working for a “pro-gay-lesbian agenda” are welcome in the CBF. 

Unlike the Southern Baptist Convention, which has spoken clearly and stood firm regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, there is a very strong and very vocal pro-homosexuality faction within the CBF.  CBF coordinator Daniel Vestal  recently acknowledged this fact in an article appearing in the North Carolina Biblical Recorder:  

People in CBF have different views on the issue of homosexuality.  ‘The question is can you cooperate with somebody even though you have real differences with them,’ Vestal said.  ‘To me, the fundamentalist [SBC] position is if you don’t agree with me, we can’t work with you.’[iii]

In the same article, CBF leaders reemphasized that their primary commitment is to inclusiveness and the “historic Baptist principles” of autonomy of the local church and priesthood of the believer, and that for CBF, holding views supportive of homosexual behavior is not an issue.  According to CBF leaders, “individuals and churches” that hold pro-homosexuality views are “still welcome…in the fellowship because we’re inclusive.”[iv]

It is believed by some that the CBF has managed to keep the homosexual issue from dividing the Fellowship in large degree because the group does not take “official positions” on social issues that are divisive within the CBF -- issues like abortion and homosexuality.  According to CBF Communications Coordinator David Wilkinson:  “CBF does not issue pronouncements on moral concerns, nor does our annual General Assembly act on resolutions on social issues.”[v]

Thus, not only has CBF failed to take a stand against such pressing moral issues of contemporary America as homosexuality, but it has found itself consistently in the camp of those who support homosexuality.  If indeed, the CBF believes it is being “falsely accused” regarding the issue of homosexuality, maybe it could answer a few of the many concerns that have been raised.  For example, does it not matter…

·         …that a significant portion of CBF leadership and CBF-related organizations consistently align themselves with Religious Left groups supportive of homosexuality? 

·         …that the CBF-funded BJCPA played a leadership role in the production of an extreme pro-homosexuality political training manual? 

·         …that the CBF-funded Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America advocates the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons? 

·         …that numerous members of the CBF’s coordinating council serve (or have served) on the governing board of Americans United, a participating organization in the National Religious Leadership Roundtable which exists to support and affirm gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?  (AU also has an exhibit booth at annual CBF general assemblies.) 

·         …that the CBF’s coordinating council includes the executive director and a board member/treasurer of The Interfaith Alliance, also a member of the National Religious Leadership Roundtable which claims that its existence confirms the broad base of religious support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons?   

·         …that the president of the CBF-funded Baptist Women in Ministry served (until recently) as associate pastor of University Baptist Church in Austin, Texas, which was “kicked out” of the Baptist General Convention of Texas for ordaining a homosexual as a deacon?  (University Baptist Church is listed as one of the CBF’s “church links” in Texas and will be hosting the annual meeting of the Alliance of Baptists in the year 2000.[vi]) 

·         …that the CBF-funded, national, moderate newspaper, Baptists Today, operated for years out of Oakhurst Baptist Church in Decatur, Georgia, which has ordained openly homosexual deacons, named a homosexual to the chairmanship of the deacons’ board, and ordained a homosexual minister?  (Oakhurst Baptist Church will host the annual meeting of the Alliance of Baptists in the year 2001.[vii]) 

·         …that Wake Forest Baptist Church in North Carolina -- whose pastor, Richard Groves, served on the Interim Steering Committee of the CBF and from 1991 to 1995 on the CBF Coordinating Council -- allows its ministers to perform gay marriages and has openly homosexual members serving on the deacon board, in the choir, and as Sunday School teachers?  (Groves was also a founder of the Alliance of Baptists, which will hold its annual meeting at Wake Forest Baptist Church in the year 2002.[viii])        

·         …that the Alliance of Baptists, which claims to have “provided much of the leadership of the [Cooperative Baptist] Fellowship,” has openly declared its support of homosexuality, giving all six mission grants in 1997 to churches that “have a pro-gay stance?” 

·         …that CBF coordinator Daniel Vestal served on the BJCPA board of directors with Carole Shields, president of People for the American Way, whose organization has been working in the courts to legalize homosexual marriages? 

·         …that the BJCPA, which receives about a quarter million dollars each year from the CBF, played a significant role in an extreme pro-homosexuality AIDS conference sponsored the AIDS National Interfaith Network (ANIN), an organization headed up by two homosexual men? 

·         …that the CBF’s AIDS resource packet, which recommended ANIN as an AIDS resource, re-defines the family to include “gay families and lesbian families” by virtue of their “enduring covenants?” 

·         …that the CBF’s AIDS resource packet declares that:  “We do not choose our sexual orientation, but rather we ‘awaken’ to it?” 

·         …that former CBF coordinating council member Paul Duke (a leading Baptist advocate for Biblical acceptance of homosexuality and currently a professor of New Testament at the CBF-funded McAffee  School of Theology at Mercer) states in his two part series entitled: “Homosexuality and the Church,” that:  “Having taken the time to study the [Biblical] texts, I cannot with confidence say that the Bible condemns all forms of homosexual behavior?”  (Duke led a CBF pre-assembly institute by the same title at the 1994 CBF General Assembly)

·         …that a significant portion of CBF leadership and CBF-related organizations consistently oppose conservative Christian organizations that have stood firm regarding the sinfulness of homosexual behavior (like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Don Wildmon’s American Family Association, Beverly LaHaye’s Concerned Women for America…), referring to such groups as the “Radical Religious Right?” 

Do any of these things matter?  Is it unfair for the Christian community at large to conclude that CBF is supportive – or at the very least -- sympathetic to homosexuality?   

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said it well in a recent editorial:  ‘“You are known by the company you keep’…  You can tell a lot about our organization by considering who stands with us…and who stands against us.”[ix]  The same is true for the CBF.      

 

[ Back ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]