February 23, 2005
Dear Ken,
Thank you for asking for responses to your letter. Here is mine:
Indeed, “we are deeply divided over accepting the practice of homosexuality.” We have managed to ignore the issue longer than most mainline denominations, but it is impossible to do so any longer.
I want to say first of all that it is the purpose of the Minister’s Council to be relevant and representative of all ministers, but it cannot force that. If pastors choose not to be a part of Ministers Council, that is their prerogative. Perhaps in this process, pastors may see that they can and want to be a part of the Ministers Council.
As I understand it, the purpose of our Jerusalem Council process is not to settle the issue of homosexuality. That will take much more than “a real head knocking.” I believe the purpose is to discern if we can embrace our Baptist heritage of soul liberty and respect for diversity and remain “family”, or if the issue of homosexuality, and perhaps after that other “tough” issues, is too grievous to allow for differing places to stand. As to comparing our process to the Jerusalem Council, I believe the “main issue” here is staying together as a Baptist family; the corollary issue is homosexuality.
Our Baptist heritage has included, among other things, the autonomy of the local church. Perhaps that differs from the early church in which the Jerusalem Council settled the matter for all local churches. And perhaps for some, the issue of homosexuality “trumps” the issue of our heritage. I guess that is what is being decided in this time.
I do not believe either of these issues are ones of Biblical authority, but of Biblical interpretation. Most of us on all sides of controversial issues look to the Bible for overarching authority. But none of us, liberal or conservative, have a complete and total, inerrant understanding of the Bible. Sincere, prayerful, Spirit led, God-fearing and loving Christians have found themselves standing in different places as to interpretation, not just from each other, but also in different places at different times in their own lives, given more study, prayer and experiences.
As for my own, less than perfect interpretation, I believe that all scripture, Genesis through Revelation, must be interpreted through the life and teachings of Jesus. This still does not make for unity of thought with others who also interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus, but it does mean that we are trying to live under the Lordship, and grace of Jesus Christ. What I have appreciated about being Baptist is that there has been room for all of us, in spite of differences of thought.
Again, thank you for expressing your concerns and requesting responses.
Sandy Walton
Senator from Central Region
March 1, 2005
Dear Sandra,
Thank you for your letter. It is the kind of letter I was hoping I would get. You express yourself beautifully, and I wish I could answer as well as you write.
I feel I have spoken to some of the issues you raise as I have tried to answer other correspondence that is now posted on the web site. I don't want to repeat.
Your understanding of the Jerusalem Council process was not to settle the issue of homosexuality. Behind my letter was the growing understanding that you are right and it was not even to be seriously addressed. The focus, as you state, would be on our Baptist heritage and polity. If we have to settle that first it was clear to me that we would not get to the issue that is tearing us apart.
A couple comes to you for marriage counselling and the stated problem is wife abuse with the wife threatening to leave. The issue you perceive is to keep them together and your approach is to call them back to their marriage vows that were "for better or worse." You assure them that once they make this recommitment you will address the abuse problem and the others that spin off from that. But first things first.
Would you do it that way?
In Christ
Ken Savage
Senator from PSW