It's just my word against your info, but I can say with absolute confidence that whether the issue is illicit drugs, infidelity, or homosexuality, an evangelical pastor would be immediately removed. I don't support everything the Baptists do but I have to give them credit for their consistent treatment of issues like this, especially in regard to sexual issues. Would Haggard have been fired for being gay? Of course. That is unquestionably a hot-button issue. He would certainly have been fired for anything else as well, though.
Nat-Wu also focused on the conduct of specific churches, but also on the conservative evangelical movement as a whole:
I think it's a little disengenous to state that all evangelicals treat all sexual morality issues equally. As you said, your experience is in Baptist churches that do. I have been in Baptist churches that don't, as well as churches of other denominations. Also, the Episcopalians who decided to support gay marriage are not by default less evangelical than those who oppose it. So obviously, there is quite a wide range of evangelical opinions on all these matters. That being said, I think it's important to note that the Episcopal church basically split over the issue of gay marriage, not over divorce or abortion. Also, and this is not speaking specifically of pastors but rather congregants, you typically won't find them protesting divorce or partaking in "divorcee-bashing", whereas I have witnessed evangelicals, Baptist or otherwise, actively gay-bashing. That strongly suggests that they do not regard the two issues equally, even if their actual doctrine treats them equally.
It is of course impossible to deny that there are conservative evangelical churches that treat all issues pertaining to sinful behavior equally, without a whiff of hypocrisy. But it is also impossible to deny that other churches are much quicker to condemn sin related to homosexual behavior. But overall, it is impossible to deny that politically, it is the issue of gay-marriage, and homosexuality in general, that drives conservative evangelical congregations to act thusly:
The state's largest religious denomination will no longer affiliate with churches that embrace openly gay members.
North Carolina Baptists on Tuesday approved an anti-gay measure that prevents member churches from hiring, ordaining or accepting for membership anyone whose action "defies so blatantly the word of God."
"There are a lot of religious denominations that are compromising -- we can't," said Mike Harris, chairman of the convention committee commissioned to study the proposal.
Note, these churches are not splitting merely over the issue of gay-marriage. They are splitting over the mere acceptance of gays into their congregations. Now of course there are many among this congregation who refuted such an approach, but lost the vote on the measure. And there are many more churches that are also conservative and evangelical that would not take such an approach. But it is actions like these, taken quite publicly, that represent the face of conservative evangelism to non-evangelicals, non-Christians, and American society in general. It is difficult to imagine a church splitting over the treatment of divorcees, or drug users, and so this leaves many with what I think is a natural impression that these churches simply do not treat those issues with as much seriousness. To an outsider such as myself, that at best leads one to question their priorities. At worst, it creates more than a whiff of hypocrisy.
Update: Lest you think I'm picking on only Baptists or evangelicals in general, this article reveals that Catholics and Presbytarians are also moving to take a harder line on gays in their chuches.
1 comment:
Well, if you interpret the doctrine that way. I don't think it's as unequivocal as you state, and plenty of scholars could would say the same thing (Bart Ehrman, Burton Mack, etc.) Regardless of that, we're not talking about forcing the church to do anything. They don't have to accept anybody.
The problem is that these churches are ardently anti-gay when homosexuality isn't any greater sin than any other. Again, you're defending these guys with a congregation you're familiar with. Don't do that. They're not the same. It's true that they're concerned with other sins as well. None of us would say otherwise.
But it's also true that if a member gets divorced, he's not kicked out by default. The specific action of this association is to kick out homosexuals and churches that accept them. You make an argument that a person can't actively live in sin and expect the church to accept them without repentance. But defining sinful behavior is an issue here. It used to be, and still is in some churches, that rock and roll was regarded as sinful. My dad wouldn't listen to anything but gospel music. I remember reading a little comic-book tract that talked about the link between rock and satanism. And yet at Ted Haggard's church, they had a Christian "rock" band play for services. True, it's rock-lite, but so is Elvis by today's standards and you don't still see people smashing his records.
The point is, homosexuality, whatever scripture you may point out, is defined to be a sin by the church. And if certain churches or denominations don't define it as a sin, well, that's why they have separate churches.
You have to consider why this issue is treated differently, and what such treatment's implications are. Not that I'm comparing any other church with this one, but let's just take Fred Phelp's Westboro Baptist Church. These are people who want every gay to die. Now, abortion is treated just as fervently by many other churches, but what other single issue is? Equal weight is not given to pre-marital sex, nor divorce, nor drug use, nor just about anything else.
I don't think this is scriptural; this is a fanatical reaction on the part of the congregations. It's an outgrowth of homophobia that has nothing to do with scripture. And that's what needs to be addressed.
Post a Comment