Final Jerusalem Council Report

JERUSALEM COUNCIL REPORT

SENATE 2005

Senate 2004 voted to convene a Jerusalem Council process to conclude in early summer 2005 as preparation for a proposed Bylaws amendment on the table for Senate 2005. Twenty-one gatherings around the country have met for dialogue and discernment on how the future looks given the differences in understanding of the interface between biblical interpretation of homosexuality and Baptist principles as protection of biblical authority. Please visit www.ministerscouncil.com and click on the Jerusalem Council image for access to complete Jerusalem Council information: history, purpose, schedule of events, reports, proposed amendment, correspondence, suggested readings, and other pertinent information. It is essential to review the web information to comprehend the scope and results of the project. That material will not be repeated in these six pages of summary.

The stated goal of the Jerusalem Council project was: “The Jerusalem Council process will help prepare senators for the vote AND to speak in any other way the Senate 2005 might choose. While it is a process designed to address one particular situation in the life of one organization, the Ministers Council is aware that reverberations will impact the entire denomination. We seek to engage it with wisdom, grace and courage, in the spirit of prayer:”

GENERALIZED CONCLUSIONS

Various generalized conclusions are apparent. In order to review the discussions at the Jerusalem Councils, it is essential to select language by which to identify perspectives on the spectrum of conviction. While there are no descriptive terms perfectly acceptable to everyone it is clear that the labels fundamentalist and liberal often offend the parties being described. In awareness that there is no way to satisfy everyone but that some terms must be selected, this report will describe perspectives considered to lie at the right of the spectrum as traditional/conservative and perspectives considered to lie at the left as open/progressive. No constituent Council is monolithic in its perspective, with varying shades of conviction both on biblical interpretation of homosexuality and on Baptist principles as protective of biblical authority and the right of local interpretation.

• We are divided on many other issues, surfaced when we set about to discuss homosexuality: scriptural authority as it relates to interpretation; the focus of the Gospel; doctrinal conformity and Baptist polity; mission; justice; role of women, divorce, abortion, e.g., “Unlike some, I do not believe that the issue over homosexuality is THE issue of the day.  I'm concerned that THE issue is much deeper and has been building for 15 years or better and has to do more with studying scripture, interpreting scripture and scriptural authority.  I've also experienced many times in recent years when trying to have conversations with others that we have begun to use the same words, but mean something very different as we use them.”
• We are alike in that everyone feels frustrated and both “sides” of the continuum talk of leaving the denomination because controversy consumes energy that could be effectively spent elsewhere.  The traditional/conservative perspective often links to a sense of contamination if Welcoming and Affirming congregations are allowed to remain within the body.  The open/progressive perspective often links to a sense of fatigue with being under attack.
• The goal is not to seek compromise: certainly not the goal of open/progressives, certainly not the goal of conservatives/traditionalists, and neither is it the goal of those of us longing for the body to remain together. Many at all points of the spectrum express the beliefs that Baptist principles both protect biblical authority and make space for each local body to be firm in its convictions while living together with those of very different convictions, and together we can do mission.
• Talk of split does not stem for our being in “a post-denominational era” where national affiliations are irrelevant. Efforts are in process to create new or expand existing networks made up of current American Baptist congregations. For instance, American Baptist Evangelicals on July 22 extended this invitation to the traditional/conservative constituency: “Our purpose in writing is to invite you to come to Lombard, Ill., on September 23-24, 2005, to unite for a time of prayer, discernment and decision. Infrequently over the course of a lifetime does a person have an opportunity to participate in and witness the genesis of a new movement, a defining moment in history. We hope you won’t miss this moment to help create a coalition of Baptist churches committed to a solid, compassionate, intelligent orthodoxy.” Similarly, the Alliance of Baptists has sponsored meetings of pastors invited from the open/progressive constituency.
• Rhetoric of two American Baptist leaders is frequently repeated concerning what is essential to American Baptists. The traditional/conservative group tends to cite the need for “boundaries” in a contaminated and sinful world while the open/progressive group tends to define the denominational DNA as our being “bridge people” in an alienated and needy world.
• In many local contexts colleagues from the traditional/conservative perspective and the open/progressive perspective can agree to disagree with one another and continue local relationships but are unwilling to live with a national body that does not vote and enforce their own side’s views.
• The cluster of current dynamics known as postmodernity/globalization/enhanced communications has brought close a plethora of religious stories that contrast with the singular local church America Baptist story of our youth, and we now know within our very own tradition how differently from us, for instance, TABCOM and ABCPSW believe and behave. (Peter Berger posits that contrary to fears of desacralization, in postmodernity the plethora of religious stories that have been brought to our awareness elicit one of three responses: desire to understand and engage to see what we might accomplish together; development of a tightly controlled, single-minded small enclave; efforts to assert hegemony of our own worldview as the only truth.)
• The magnitude of passion generated makes clear how it happened that our Baptist forebears were martyred. Us vs. them language leaps easily from the tongue, often rife with militaristic metaphor from some.
• Those perceiving denominational division as the likely future fall roughly into two camps: this is a gospel issue and we can neither live with nor allow resources to be taken by those who countenance sin; this is an opportunity to witness to the world as we comport ourselves with dignity through disagreement and perhaps even separation, blessing one another on the way into separate futures.
• The Spirit can and does bond us across differences through the power of relationships that allow the tension of living with and exploring different biblical interpretations (“We are brothers in Christ, we love one another and would die for one another – even though we disagree profoundly.”)

PERSPECTIVES

While the Jerusalem Councils varied in emphasis and a full spectrum of views was expressed, the polarizing nature of the issue tended to elicit polarized positions. One might summarize the polarizations most frequently expressed as follows:

CONSERVATIVE/TRADITIONAL

• Authority of Scripture is inseparable from biblical interpretation. There is only one possible way to interpret any text and clarity of biblical worldview is a no brainer.
• The marriage of one man and one woman is both the biblical norm and the foundation of all stability in family, church, society and world.
• The Bible defines the practice of homosexuality as sinful. It is a product of the Fall and can be healed by the redeeming power of Jesus Christ (citing Family Research Council, “Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality,” 2004).
• Homosexuality is a choice and behaviors otherwise prohibited should not be affirmed simply because it has been argued that there is a predisposition toward those behaviors. This is thus not a civil rights issue like race or gender.
• This is a Gospel issue. There can be no salvation until they repent; or they are saved but cannot be church leaders.
• The stance is Welcoming and Transforming, welcoming gays as sinner who need to repent and enter reparative therapy. Some say that homosexual behavior is a sin like any other sin, needing repentance; others say that homosexual behavior is a particularly serious sin.
• LOVE means confronting sinners with their sin so they can repent and do not have to burn in hell. This is spiritual warfare so we cannot afford to delay.
• In compassion we must draw homosexuals near so we can minister to them.
• We did not start this fight. Homosexuality is being legitimated by a gay rights lobby, by activist judges, by culture (media and entertainment). This is a cultural issue brought into the churches.
• We cannot be in mission together without agreement, cannot work with those who teach a different biblical viewpoint, cannot be in the same body if we disagree that this is sin.
• We have wasted too much time on dialogue: no dialogue on biblical matters.
• We need a creed to get straight on all matters of faith. Everyone should be required to sign. We must determine mission focus, partners, causes we fund through the lens of that creedal affirmation.
• The entire national body is contaminated if we tolerate the presence of Welcoming and Affirming congregations. Evangelism is hampered.
• Other racial-ethnic groups understand what Scripture says versus what culture is pressing, that God abhors the practice of homosexuality, and that Scripture speaks clearly on this issue as wrong in ways that it does not address other issues raised as analogous journeys of interpretation (slavery, women in ministry, divorce).
• We have many sins to deal with, not just homosexuality. We need to issue a clear call for all those sinners to repent.
• We must purge all denominational entities, not just congregations, and not let apostasy impose its postmodern agenda on the church.
• You are saying that Baptist principles trump the authority of Scripture.
• This is an issue of tribalism. We can only relate to those who look, think, act, smell like us.
• The denomination perpetuates the struggle by refusing to take a stand/ make a decision.
• Allowing dismissed churches to join other regions is against the will of the people. A decision will resolve the problems because one side will be out of the ABC.
• Get off the fence; my church will no longer fund ABC mission until you settle this issue.

OPEN/PROGRESSIVE

• Baptist principles guarantee scriptural authority by protecting the right of a church to interpret Scripture and allow it to guide their lives and ministry together, rather than being constrained by a majority to accept what the Spirit does not lead them to read in the Bible.
• The biblical world does not know same gender orientation but addresses homosexual practices by persons not by nature so oriented, as practices associated with idolatry or perversion. Leviticus texts refer to boundary-crossing and include cross-breeding cattle, sowing different crops in the same field, wearing clothing of blended materials; our categories essential for holiness are not the same. Paul in the Romans 1 text addresses not faithful, committed same gender relationships but how idolatry leads to other sinful acts, and in Romans 14-15 addresses members of a community who despise and pass judgment on others.
• Committed, faithful, same gender relationships are not sinful but bless the individuals and the world.
• Sexual practices, whether heterosexual or homosexual, that abuse or abase other persons are sinful.
• Homosexuality is not a chosen condition.
• The American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association view homosexuality as a normal condition for some persons and judge the practice of homosexuality not to be aberrant behavior for those persons and so-called reparative therapy to be generally ineffective. In 1973 the APA removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of mental illnesses.
• Homosexual relationships are not the source of threats to heterosexual marriage or family life.
• Homosexual marriage grants rights essential for normal life, such as the rights of medical decision-making and inheritance.
• Sexually human beings are on a continuum about whom to love.
• We see the presence of the Spirit in the lives of gay Christians; we see God blessing them and their ministries through the fruits of the Spirit.
• We come to this perspective by Scripture and Spirit, not by following culture. God moves repeatedly across boundaries. God is doing a new thing in sending the Spirit to bring further light on yet another matter we have not understood (as with slavery and the role of women).
• Integrity means that homosexuals must be able to be open about who they are and not forced to hide or distort their God-given identities.
•  Many persons in our churches are negatively impacted by the attitudes of hostility and judgment. Many persons outside the church reject the church for these attitudes. Evangelism is hampered.
• The hostility among us is part of a demonic plan to destroy the church.
• We did not start the fight. Attacks on homosexuals are used by the religious right to stir the base and leverage money and labor for the religious right agenda.
• LOVE requires welcoming and affirming homosexuals as they testify to their own God-given orientation.
• The body has not been willing to hear the stories of gay and lesbian Christians. That testimony is essential for discernment.
• In this time of postmodernity (not postmodernism but a time beyond modernity  with certain defining features) we grant to God the power to lead us in our reading of Scripture and in the light of what we read extend the grace to hear one another’s stories.
• Unity does not require uniformity. Through all the disagreements of the early church in Acts we do not witness disfellowshipping of congregations.
• It is God’s grace to give and not up to us to withhold. The table belongs to Christ to invite whom he wills.
• We like being part of a group with a breadth of perspective. That is like family, how we are oriented in life and how we grow.

POSSIBLE WAYS FORWARD

The Ministers Council and other denominational entities might consider engaging processes that take into account the following insights, suggestions and potentially fruitful questions:

• Be careful how we portray one another. Do not stereotype. Do not call traditionalists uncompassionate and unloving, or progressives unchristian and unbiblical.
• Plan retreats and other events focused on how we continue as Ministers Council to be effective, with perhaps different membership configuration should that possibility eventuate. How do we most effectively serve the constituency?
• Develop a DVD that shows models of how we can hold together across differences: a personal testimony by persons with different convictions on biblical interpretation and homosexuality but a strong relationship in Christ; a review of how Baptist polity creates space for unity without uniformity; a witness by a product of American Baptist missionary work on the value of community that allows us to live with the tension of difference.
• What does it mean to be a biblical people? We need to study the Bible together, not just the texts cited as relevant to homosexuality but all. What is the Gospel? Who is Jesus Christ? What does God expect of us? What are “biblical family values” and do they differ from images gleaned from our memories of 1950s America? What is the point of it all (get individual persons to heaven or create a world of justice and peace)? These and other major differences surfaced should be brought to Bible study together for discussion.
• What are the sources of religious authority? Can we really approach Scripture de novo without any filter of tradition, experience or reason, as traditional/conservative proponents tend to assert? Do those sources of authority bear positive weight, as open/progressive proponents tend to assert?
• What are areas of agreement on what constitutes sexual immorality? Some worry that we are on a slippery slope that will ultimately progress to “accommodate cultural fallenness as it becomes more perverse.” What are the boundaries?
• What does the Bible say about justice? Some see focus on social justice as liberal perversion of the Gospel. What does Jesus say?
• Relationships are the glue that bonds us, how the Spirit holds us together across profound differences. Share such testimonies. Engage in Common Ground or other processes to be intentional about developing relationships across differences of perspective.
• This matter needs time for genuine dialogue and discernment, across many levels of denominational life, trusting God to show us how to hold together (or not). Pay attention to Martin Marty, professor emeritus of church history from the University of Chicago, who when he was asked the question, “How should denominations deal with their conflict over homosexuality?” responded, “First, we need to stop voting on all these issues, and rid ourselves of the fiction that majority rule in a 55-45 split reflects the will of God. And then we need to start practicing a new kind of polity, one rooted in conversation and in hospitality.”
• How do we communicate our positive beliefs, values, missions – so that unchurched persons are drawn near and relationships are developed? Do not lead from the negative as the primary message the world hears from us.
• Do not let this issue define us. Have we given this issue an inappropriate place and allowed it to distract us from what we are called to do?
• Teach how Baptist polity works: the interface between local congregations and national/regional entities.
• Teach American Baptist governance: matters that are covenant as distinct from matters that are law; what is unenforceable.
• Emphasize ABC as ministering with and to “others” of all sorts, being transformed as we follow Christ together (poster of heaven).
• If division is necessary, do it in peace and bless one another on the way.
• We desperately need engagement in theological conversation to facilitate dialogue and discernment. The body suffers from the loss of the old Consultation on Life and Theology model given up about 20 years ago.
• It would be interesting also to talk together about historic confessions/covenants and their role in holding Baptists together for mission, allowing disagreement on controversial issues while working in unity centered on Christ. The Swansea, MA, church apparently has the oldest extant Baptist confession (1663) in the Americas ("So we are ready to accept and receive too, and hold communion with all such as by a judgement of charity we conceive to be fellow members with us in our head Jesus Christ, though differing from us in such controversial points as are not absolutely and essentially necessary to salvation.")

 Kate Harvey

July 2005