Summary of Individual Responses
A total of 174 individual responses were reviewed. Some of the respondents chose to directly address to the two questions as posed. Others addressed the issue in their own way. However, either approach provided information to describe the various positions on the issue of homosexuality and the American Baptist Churches. The analysis of all responses was conducted so that various themes were explored. The major themes that emerged were the respondents’ basic positions on homosexuality; the proposed amendment to the Bylaws; individual interpretations and meanings of the principle of soul freedom; and the future of the American Baptist Churches.
Reflections on Homosexuality
Regarding the reflections on homosexuality in light of Christ’s greatest commandment to love God and neighbor, the comments unanimously expressed commitment to loving others according to the teachings of Jesus. However the behavioral expression of this love was described with three different perspectives. The first is that loving others requires pointing out when they are behaving incorrectly or in a sinful manner. Some respondents went further to say that leading the person to confession and repentance is the appropriate expression of love. Another perspective suggested that the only true judge of behavior is God and that in the final analysis, whether homosexuality is a sin can not be determined by man or woman. A third perspective that emerged was one that affirmed homosexuality as a natural or God given orientation. This perspective was contrasted with the one that described homosexuality as a choice over which one has control.. Several of the respondents provided scriptural and scientific support for their positions. Notwithstanding the various perspectives expressed, the findings can be summarized by saying that the respondents were almost evenly split in opinion about homosexuality being a sin.
Among the 174 respondents, 88 took the definite position that homosexuality is a sin and against the natural course that God has planned for humanity. Most qualified their positions with supporting Scripture (both Old and New Testament). Fifty-eight (60) of those who said homosexuality is a sin further said there was hope for forgiveness if the individuals engaged in same sex relationship would repent. Most of the language indicated that the denomination should carry out Jesus’ greatest commandment by lovingly encouraging this repentance. The general consensus was that individuals in same sex relationships should not be appointed to leadership positions until the act of repentance has occurred. Some of the specific perspectives cited by those reflecting that homosexuality is a sin are listed below:
The remaining 86 respondents either indicated that sexual orientation is pre-determined by genetics or that there is not enough information to determine the cause of same sex attraction and therefore, the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin should not be drawn. For many of these respondents, the relevant Scripture relating to relationships requires commitment and monogamy. There was substantial discussion about the genetic basis of homosexuality, removing the responsibility from individual choice and placing it on God’s design for those persons. To these respondents, Jesus’ commandment to love God and neighbor should be carried out through acceptance of differences, including homosexual orientation. Many of these respondents referred to Scripture proclaiming God, as the ultimate judge. Therefore the denomination has no role in working out the salvation of those in same sex relationships. Some of the perspectives cited by those reflecting that homosexuality is not a sin are listed below:
The Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws
The comments on the proposed amendment to the Bylaws were consistent among those who reflected on homosexuality as a natural right. Not everyone commented on the proposed amendment. However, everyone from the group that indicated homosexuality is not a sin and who also commented on the proposed amendment were either against its adoption or favored more dialogue. Some felt the dialogue had been exhausted and that prayer for direction is the proper course of action. Many of these respondents also thought that the dialogue should not be closed by adoption of this amendment and that the perspectives of those Christians who are also engaged in homosexual relationships have not been heard and are not understood by the denomination. Some indicated that adoption of the proposed amendment would bring premature closure to the discussion on the issue. Others who opposed the amendment thought that enough time had been exhausted on the discussion and that the amendment should be defeated. The majority of those opposing the amendment said they could remain faithful to God and remain in fellowship with those who hold strong convictions opposite to their own regarding homosexuality. One person indicated that he/she would separate from the denomination should the core values of inclusion and respect for diversity be abandoned.
Among those who reflected on homosexuality as a sin, most indicated support for the proposed amendment. However, slightly over one fourth (24) were open to more dialogue before bringing the issue to closure. Also among these supporters of the amendment, many felt that enough time had been exhausted and that the dialogue should be closed. A large majority (59) of those taking this position indicated that they could not be faithful to God and remain in fellowship with those who hold strong convictions opposite to their own regarding homosexuality. Four respondents indicated that they had already experienced some type of resignation or modification of participation because of this issue.
Interpretation of the Meaning of Soul Freedom and the Independence of the Individual Baptist Church
The issue of soul freedom and its role in the life of the denomination was discussed by respondents holding both points of view. This is obviously recognized as a core value of the denomination by all of the respondents. However the interpretation is different. Some of those who support adoption of the amendment indicated that this principle is being used to justify defiance of Scriptural authority. Those opposing the amendment who spoke on the principle thought that the denomination is not authorized to mediate between the individual and God in judging whether a homosexual orientation constitutes sin.
A second principle that was reflected in the comments from both points of view is the independence of the individual church within the denomination. Among many of those opposing the amendment, the right of the individual church was upheld for actions such as selection of leadership and pastors. This principle was extended to the regional level by several of the respondents. The independence of the individual church was cited by several supporters of the amendment in relation to their charge to represent the God consciousness of their congregations in deliberations at the regional and national levels.
The Future of the American Baptist Churches
The overall reaction to the opportunity to comment on this issue was positive. Respondents welcomed the chance to express their concerns. This is reflective of an atmosphere where respect for diversity is the norm. This aspect of the denomination was mentioned by those on both sides of the issue of homosexuality. Many commented on their perspectives on the future of the American Baptist Churches. The issue of homosexuality is seen by the respondents as a major dividing issue. Many said that the differences are irreconcilable. However, as this report draws to a close, the commonalities will be highlighted as a suggested perspective for movement beyond this point in time.
The responses reflect a journey of the denomination that included confrontation of other internal struggles over issues such as slavery and the role of women in church and in denominational leadership. This journey was mentioned by respondents representing both points of view. Although to those supporting the amendment, the issue of homosexuality is seen as being different from those addressed in the past, there is the suggestion in some comments that the degree of division on these past struggles may have been as strong.
The denomination is referred to lovingly by respondents on both sides of the issue. The commitment to the core values of the denomination regarding church independence was reflected by all who commented on their reasons for affiliation. Even those who expressed the possibility of full or partial separation from the denomination reflected loving feelings about the fellowship and pain at the thought of such actions. Most importantly, the higher calling to ministry was cited consistently by those with both perspectives. The underlying theme identified by the analysis of the responses was that the denomination has a mission that has little to do with the issue of homosexuality, but all to do with the Great Commission. And it is this mission that has held the denomination together through previous struggles. The strengths of the denomination as reflected by the 174 responses, the majority of which include at least implicit thoughts of possible compromise, suggest hope for the future.
Conclusions
The analysis of the 174 individual responses clearly suggests a division in the denomination on the issue of homosexuality, particularly as it relates to the appropriateness of persons practicing this lifestyle holding leadership positions. The division appears equally proportioned between those supporting and opposing the proposed amendment. However, the majority are open to more dialogue. The question remaining is: Can the mission work of the denomination continue while further dialogue and research on the issue of homosexuality are pursued?