Dear CBC:
I wish to express my appreciation for the thoughtfulness and passion of the CBC Cabinet and its pastors.
It has been my observation that there is a deep desire across ABCUSA to move away from the practice of some of our ABC family members who regularly use the Biennial, spending enormous energy, in attempts to legislate their sense of morality or to assign certain theological beliefs/perspectives as normative for member congregations of ABCUSA.
Your observation is correct concerning the threshold that would be required to resend the Public Witness Statement on homosexuality. In my opinion it will be some time before the church in general and ABCUSA in particular will have a majority of persons who desire to resend statements like unto the one that troubles you. I also agree with Alan Newton, that for us, in ABCUSA in "the existing statements have no authority over regions or congregations and that, that, will not change."
I believe that we are making a step in the right direction. I want out of the practice of making statements with a simple majority vote. We will press forward in the process of engagement and dialogue on issue(s) related to human sexuality.
James McJunkin
Executive Minister
--------------------
James,
Thank you for your quick response to CBC's concerns. We have already begun to share your response, as well as those of Alan and Roy, with the congregation as they continue their discussions.
I hear you about the desire to de-politicize the biennials, and to move away from a structure that allows highly politicized resolutions to be rammed through the General Board with simple majorities. We've had far too much of that. And I recognize that the new structure qualitatively changes the mechanisms for future public witness statements.
As you have ascertained, CBC's biggest concern is the higher bar that is being set to rescind past resolutions (it is considerably higher than the requirements to rescind future public witness statements). My assessment is that the new structure makes it functionally impossible to rescind the 92 resolution. To be honest, I am far more concerned about the 2005 identity statement than I am about the 92 resolution. As you said, resolutions were never understood to be binding over congregations and regions (even though the 92 resolution continues to be referenced as if it is -- even by Roy). But the 2005 identity statement really sets my Baptist blood boiling, because it is such a blatantly creedal statement that violates the core Baptist principles of non-creedalism, soul liberty, and the freedom of the congregation to pursue its ministry as it feels led. I know you affirm all of these principles, and have stood upon them, so I'm not venting against you -- I'm just venting.
Overall, I worry that the new structure does not explicitly reaffirm some of these crucial baptist principles, and it functions to "cement" the offensive creedal statements into place. I agree with you that it may be some time until a majority of American Baptists will enact progressive statements about sexuality. But the Baptist stand has always said that it is not up to the majority. The reason we resist creedal statements is our recognition of danger of the tyranny of the majority, and the fact that majority does not always represent the movement of the Holy Spirit. So, for me, the burden shouldn't be on progressives to gain a majority. The burden is precisely on the majority to reject creedal statements that silence the minority.
I know you have worked hard, with the other members of the team who drafted the new structure, and I appreciate your work, and your voice in that process. I can only imagine what they might have come up with had you not been there :) . CBC appreciates this also. I think you know CBC well enough to know that it has been quite uncomfortable for them to live for 17 years with the 92 resolution. This discomfort is not just a function CBC's ideological sensitivity. The 92 resolution and the 2005 identity statement are deeply offensive to and deeply wound people in this congregation.
Again, James, thanks for your thoughtful response.
Tom
No comments:
Post a Comment