FOUR EMERGING/COMPETING VIEWS OF THE BLACK CHURCH ON HOMOSEXUALITY
REPRESENTED BY:
KIM BURRELL, E. DEWEY SMITH, REGINALD SHARPE JR. AND YVETTE FLUNDER
BY WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.
Are Kim Burrell, E. Dewey Smith, Reginald Sharpe Jr. and Yvette Flunder representative of the evolution and competing views of the contemporary Black Church on Homosexuality?
A Sunday morning sermon at the close of 2016 preached by noted gospel singer Kim Burrell in her Houston pulpit has erupted into a national controversy/discussion in the Black Church regarding various views that Black pastors and gospel singers hold on the topic of Homosexuality; and calling into question: What does this generation’s Black Church believe on the subject of homosexuality? Does the Black Church of today still hold a monolithic position regarding homosexuality?
No one would seriously dispute or debate that the absolute historic universal position of the Black Church regarding homosexuality has been and officially remains: Consensual Homosexual Sexual Activity Is A Sin—Period. Just as adultery, fornication, drunkenness, gluttony, pride, laziness, racism, sexism, pride, ingratitude and a host of other vices are also sin. By sin, I mean missing the mark; or falling short of the Glory of God; thinking or behavior displeasing to God. Yet, God loves homosexuals as He loves all sinners. God loves us while we are yet sinners, but He loves us too much to allow us to remain in our sins. He’s called us to maturity, growth and holiness.
However, in recent years—particularly since the declaration by the nation’s first African American President in 2012 affirming same-sex marriage and homosexuality—we have seen some cracks in the dam from high profile Black pastors and preachers who openly affirm homosexual marriage and by extension, homosexuality. The question before us is: Will the cracks in the dam become an avalanche and in short order crumble and crash the fortress of protection that has kept the act and lifestyle of homosexuality from being viewed as acceptable, normal, and approved as God-ordained behavior in the hearts and minds of most Black people in and outside of the Church? Historically, the Black Church has resisted homosexuality equally as strong as we have racism. With the bold affirmation of President Obama, we have lessened our resistance to homosexuality.
If the Black Church had not fought racism in America on her knees, in her pulpits and in the streets, the battle would have been lost. If the Black Church does not address homosexuality as a matter of spiritual warfare, demonstrating love and kindness, evangelizing and disciple-making—the battle will be lost. My thesis is, just as the historic Black Church has stood strongly against the legalizing, normalizing and institutionalizing the immorality and insanity of racism, we must do likewise with homosexuality and with the same intensity and tenacity. Failure to do so may result in us seeing homosexuality mainstreamed in our lifetime.
Homosexuality is knocking hard, fast and furious at the door of the Black Church. And this generation appears to be the one that is attempting to pry the door open with all the strength they can muster in an attempt to radically alter the Black Church’s historic opposition to homosexuality. If homosexuality continues to infiltrate the Black Church, it will destroy it from within rendering it impotent and unable to fulfill her mission to exalt the Savior, evangelize sinners, edify saints and elevate society. Neither will the Black Church be able to combat racism if she’s destroyed from within because of homosexuality. Have we forgotten the lessons from Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19; Ezekiel 16:49-50). It is time for the patriarchs, matriarchs and gate keepers of the Black community to step up to the plate with the Word of God in our hand and the Holy Spirit as our guide and lovingly shut the door on allowing homosexuality to become unofficially and officially accepted, mainstreamed, and affirmed in our churches, communities and families.
By and large, we have been very effective as a church in fighting racism. God has used the Black Church and her leaders to bring about wonderful changes on the racial front in America. Will we allow God to use us to now fight and thwart the onslaught of homosexuality that seeks to ravish our churches, families and community? Do we have the character and courage to tackle homosexuality as we have tackled racism? Do we see homosexuality as a sin equally as evil as racism? Are we willing to fight it with the passion and reckless abandon as we have done with racism? It’s time for the Spiritual Adults in the Hood to come to the forefront and prophetically and lovingly address this issue. We need our denominational leaders to weigh in and take a stand on the Kim Burrell controversy.
The evolving and competing views of the Black Church can be illustrated with the published views of Kim Burrell, E. Dewey Smith, Reginald Sharpe and Yvette Flunder. They represent four distinct views:
I. Kim Burrell’s Biblical, Historic, Traditional Views on Homosexuality:
One could quiver with the tenor and tone of Kim Burrell’s speech; but the text of what she had to say is in line with Scripture and the traditional theology of the Black church on the subject. Burrell represented “The Old Landmark.” She spoke in graphic and no uncertain terms; but she captured the simplicity and summation of what the Bible teaches believers regarding engaging in homosexual activity.
“I came to tell you about sin. That sin nature. That perverted homosexual spirit, and the spirit of delusion and confusion, it has deceived many men and women, and it’s caused a stain on the body of Christ…
You as a man, you open your mouth and take a man’s penis in your face, you are perverted, and you cannot tell me ‘thus sayeth the Lord.’ You’re perverted. You are a woman and will shake your face in another woman’s breast, you are perverted.” (http://www.dailywire.com/news/12057/gospel-singer-attacked-expressing-christian-views-frank-camp)
Who would argue that what she spoke is essentially what the Bible teaches in the following Scriptures?
Galatians 6:16-20; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:8-10; Jude 5-7; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 1:18-32; Leviticus 18:22.
II. E. Dewey Smith’s Biblical-Bridge Building—Triangulation View of Homosexuality
One of the more interesting responses to the Kim Burrell’s message came from Atlanta pastor, Dr. E. Dewey Smith. Dr. Smith has made it clear in a previous message in July 2015 that he affirms marriage is between a man and a woman. Tiga Finn, Executive Assistant to Smith, released a statement saying, “by no means is Smith now, nor has he ever been a proponent of same-sex marriage. Smith has always believed and taught that marriage is only designed for a man and woman.” I have no reason to believe that Pastor Smith has changed his view at all on biblical marriage. The Negro Baptist Preacher Table Talk report that during his tenure as a pastor in Macon, before he became, internationally known as he is today, he preached a sermon against homosexuality and repeated the tag-line—“Get the Punks Out of the Church.” Dr. Smith has clearly moderated his tone since then and seeks to build bridges and lines of communication with the LGBT Community by speaking of them with compassion, understanding, and respect. So-much-so, he has been mistaken to now be affirming their lifestyle.
In response to Burrell, Smith gave five points:
#1: Smith raises the question: “Do we believe that 60% of African American women have been given the gift of ‘celibacy’ and will live their entire lives without any sexual relations or intimacy, based on what their churches teach?” Atlanta has a high Black single population, as does the rest of America. Smith is correct—these are practical questions our churches must address. But we must also make it clear that statistics and sociology does not drive our theology; our theology dictates our sociological beliefs and practices. The Word of God does not bow to contemporary culture. Contemporary culture must bow to the Word of God.
#2: Smith affirmed Burrell’s right to share her message without stating agreement or disagreement with her message. He affirmed Ellen Degeneres’ right to cancel Burrell’s appearance without expressing agreement or disagreement with Ellen’s decision.
#3: Smith referenced biblical passages that address homosexuality such as Genesis 19, Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27, and briefly highlights how opponents and proponents of homosexuality interpret those passages differently; and he does not give the readers his interpretation of those passages.
#4: Smith makes a case for peaceful coexistence with opponents and proponents of Burrell’s theology. I don’t find his emphasis here disagreeable, but I do find it interesting. No one argues for peaceful coexistence with proponents of adultery or “swingers”—not quite understanding why there’s a need to argue for peaceful coexistence with proponents of homosexuality—particularly within the Bible-believing churches.
#5: Smith asked eight questions that are critical and necessary in light of today’s changing views on homosexuality.
As I read E. Dewey Smith’s statement, it reminds me of Bill Clinton’s political philosophy which was “triangulation.” Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy; his “Three Strikes You’re Out” Policy; and his “Welfare” Policy all represent “triangulation”—where he combined conservative, liberal and moderate views on the issues in one policy. E. Dewey Smith has mastered “triangulation” as it relates to homosexuality in the Black Church. I find more in agreement with Smith than I find disagreement. Particularly, I support his non-negotiable view on marriage strictly being between a man and woman. I also agree that our tone and tenor in addressing these matters as the Bible says must be “truth spoken in love.” My concern in Smith’s approach, though, is that the truth that homosexuality is sin may get smothered in his effort not to offend. You cannot preach against sin without offending. Jesus, Himself, is a Rock of offense.
III. Reginald Sharpe’s Liberal, Bible-Denying View of Homosexuality
Whereas, E. Dewey Smith did not take a definitive position on Kim Burrell’s statement, his satellite pastor at his Macon location of House of Hope headquartered in Atlanta, GA, did.
Reginald Sharpe Jr. had this to say in response to Kim Burrell’s message:
“And let me say a word to all of you secret supporters of Kim Burrell’s comments. You are a part of the reason the church is trouble! It was the secret supporters of Donald Trump that put a megalomaniac in office. She may be a wonderful person but what she said DID NOT represent the Jesus, the God, or the Holy Spirit I have come to know. God is love. Let’s look at ourselves in the mirror and find a way to heal our country with more love and wisdom. Hatred and ignorance has never helped heal anyone.”
Reginald Sharpe Jr. appears to embrace an extreme liberal view of homosexuality that would not declare homosexual activity as sin. He’s a generation younger than his Pastor, and my concern is that if the current patriarchs of the Black Church don’t sound the alarm, when we go in our graves—Reginald Sharpe’s theology will be the ruling theology of the Black Church on homosexuality. It will also spell the death of the Black Church as we know it today. To label Burrell’s views as “hatred” and “ignorance” is to deny the Bible and to deny her the respect and love that he’s anxious to give to gays. Sharpe’s pastor, Dr. Smith, was careful not to do that, and I appreciate him for that. If what Burrell spoke was hateful and ignorant, then what the Bible teaches is hateful and ignorant. Sharpe’s published statement reflects liberal theology and a denial of biblical truth on this topic.
IV. Yvette Flunder’s “Third New Testament” View on Homosexuality
If you want to see where the Black Church may be in 40 years—if we don’t hit the brakes on this now—is to simply look at Yvette Flunder and Shirley Miller. They are legally married and pastor a gay church in the Bay area of Northern California. Yvette Flunder is the voice on Walter Hawkins “Love Alive IV” singing “Thank You Lord for All You’ve Done for Me.” Shirley Miller is the voice on Edwin Hawkins, “Oh Happy Day.”
While speaking at the American Baptist College in Nashville, TN, a National Baptist institution, in 2014, Yvette Flunder made a statement on the nature of Scripture:
“God will not be fixed; God will not be stuck; God will not be concretized.”
She made that statement while intentionally flipping both ends of the Bible, to symbolize that God could not be “concretized” in the canon of Scripture. She further stated:
“My theology is alive and shifting and it’s not stuck between the corners and the pages of a book. Just like God spoke to them, God is speaking to us. I’d like to see Martin’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” canonized one day…maybe in a Testament III—because God is still speaking…Thank God for theological evolution.” [Emphasis Mine]
Referring to the Third Testament, equivalent to the Bible, that Flunder proposes, because “God is still speaking” Flunder suggested that it could include “skype,” “in-vitro fertilization,” and…”somebody will write about me and Shirley in 30 years.”
And, of course, Flunder released a statement in opposition to Burrell’s statement:
“I will not reciprocate and attack or seek to diminish you, but you must know the injury of your words…” (http://blackchristiannews.com/2017/01/homosexual-clergy-members-are-coming-after-kim-burrell-for-her-sermon-condemning-homosexuality/)
Kim Burrell’s words were only injurious if they were false or contradicted Scripture. And, they did not.
By 2040, I predict if the Black Church does not act with the same urgency and intensity by which she did with the Civil Right Movement, we will see open/ practicing homosexuals occupying our pulpits, serving on our ministry teams and in leadership in our churches. Flunder and Miller will be the norm.
The time is now. The crisis is apparent. Shirley Caesar is correct: Someone should have spoken up in 2012 when President Obama came out in support of homosexuality. Nevertheless, the future of our families and churches hang in the balance. Will The Church of Jesus Christ Stand Up? And just for the record, my view is somewhere between Burrell’s and Smith’s; but I lean closer to Burrell’s view.
Anybody who does not believe that homosexual activity is sin is on the wrong side of the Bible. I’d rather be on the wrong side of history, than the wrong side of the Bible.
Dwight,
I tend to think that the American Church as a whole will have chaos regarding our position on homosexuality “if we don’t hit the brakes on this now.”
cb,
I think you are right. and you are right in agreeing with Dwight since he is right.
The question is: how do we put on the brakes?
Those going to ‘affirming’ churches probably also affirm the gay lifestyle.
And those that call sin good, are they even led by the Spirit?
And soon, even as it is with the Old Mainline Churches, the ‘evangelical’ churches will split between those who affirm the plain and inerrant Word as opposed to those who preach to itching ears.
And then both the majority of so called Christians AND society will marginalize and persecute the true children of God, both black and non-black.
Unless God…
I generally try to honor titles on submissions, but I would retitle this post, Four Views of the Church….
What is happening in the Black church is happening in the White church. All four of these views are represented in great numbers.
Ms. Burrell was graphic, but she doesn’t compromise, does she?
And I guess I understand now why Ellen cancelled her appearance!! The woman speaks the truth and Ellen didn’t want to hear it.
I agree.
Plus, there is no such thing as “the black church” and “the white church”… There is just the church. These issues affect the body of Christ, the church….we are one body.
I remind our congregation a lot as were talking about Christians who are persecuted around the world – that there is no such thing as “the persecuted church in China” (for example) – there is the (singular) church made up of multiple persons – many of whom are persecuted…It is important that people realize and understand that the universal church is one body. When one part of the body suffers we all suffer.
Dwight, thanks for this informative article. Though you present four positions, I hope the historic position regarding homosexuality is the dominant one. It certainly is among the black Missionary Baptist churches I visit and preachers that I hear. The words from these pulpits are clear and strong (though perhaps not as graphic as Kim Burrell’s).
While her views are noble and her stance is to be admired, might anyone mention the issues that come from her standing in the role of Elder Bishop?
Where are the men as the youth and boys learn about women taking over roles meant for the men? Is not this equally the word of God? Has not this one disobedience opened the gates for the other? Evidently Ms. Burrell doesn’t believe she is out of place in her role as Senior “Eldress”, whatever that is.
Adding “views” are crafty ways of deluding an already weakened church, especially when the desire is eventual compliance to the world.
From my seat, too many of our churches are washed overboard with “retail-itus” and one hopped-up concert show after another. Fanatical heresy is much preferred to doctrinal purity and the church is reaping the fruits of these human sales efforts. Recording / Ticket sales are much more significant than any view on homosexual activity.
This is one of the areas where a) many in the Black church don’t agree with the SBC stance and b) I think my brother in Christ Dwight has some disagreements with our less egalitarian more complementarian views on the roles of women in ministry.
Glenn: There is going to be a woman Parliamentarian at the SBC convention. Are you one that is going to have a problem with that too?
Hi Debbie,
If it were left up to me, I might just insist that women do all the work in all the positions. It is no secret that women are most often more talented and capable than men. The truth is that men too are called to role-specif tasks and I am very concerned for us in this regard. With God, it is not so much about men and women being “capable” as “incapable”. (John 15:1-5) We seem to be all caught up in titles, power play and salaries, the lot of us.
Homosexual or heterosexual behavior has very much to do with both men and women respecting their God-assigned roles and responsibilities.
Emasculation is very popular. Presenting men as buffoons and misfits has been the staple of Sitcoms.
The Catholic church is in trouble finding enough priests.
The church sees average attendance (USA) at 60% female today.
The decline of black males in church and the “Feminization” of the church are well discussed here.
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2010/11/30/is-the-decline-of-black-males-in-black-churches-affecting-their-abilities-to-develop-a-counter-frame/
Whether its is abortion, divorce, prejudice, roles in church, how to do sex or running a business,
Moral to the story. God has decidedly specific design. Substitutions are allowed but not without negative consequences. These consequences are the heart of this thread weaving about.
PS Please give that young parliamentarian gal my permission to run for office.
Blessings
Truth of scripture is truth. It doesn’t matter if it comes from a man or a woman.
Well, it does if the Scripture defines that a pastor ought to be a man.
But we aren’t going to give Dwight’s fine post over to that discussion.
Right. As the “Great Hijacker of Posts,” please allow this pot to call the kettle black here and ask that we keep the theme of the post the primary focus here. This is a good post and Dwight has presented the problem as he sees it in Black Church Culture (BTW, that is a real culture within the Bride of Christ just as is the White Church Culture and Korean Church Culture, and so forth in America), which most all here see in whatever Church culture they most frequently engage.
It is a growing problem in local churches east, west, north, and south. We must deal with it no matter in what Church Culture or region of the nation we live and minister. The problem is real and is not going to fade away with time.
You, CB? Hijack a post?
I just don’t remember that ever happening.
Dwight,
I much enjoyed reading this – especially having studied and written previous about this topic.
A few points of engagement in no particular order.
1) Obama’s affirmation of marriage equality perhaps served to “speed up” the Black Church’s embrace of equal rights for LGBT in the political sphere, but There was a growing contingent of notable African-American scholars and leaders years prior (even prior to Obama’s presidency) who were embracing gay rights as part of a civil rights agenda: most notably individuals such as John Lewis, Andrew Young, Julian Bond, Coretta Scot King and Freddy Haynes there in your backyard. The Congregational Black Caucus had moved to embrace gay rights (in various forms, notably support for hate crimes legislation and support for sexual orientation as a protected classification alongside race, ethnicity) prior to Obama’s Johnny-Come-Lately embrace of marriage equality.
2) Do I read you to say that the Black Church must fight gay rights in the political arena OR solely in the confines of the church? The latter is one place where I have not seen rapid progress — I do not know more than a handful or two of Black churches that are truly welcoming and affirming in the same way that white churches aree.
But if you mean fight must take place in th political arena….you are fundamentally expecting the Black Church to do something it’s really never done — which is to prioritize social issues. Just an analayiss of Black Church political behavior shows that African-American prioritize race and eeconomic issues when they go to the voting booth, even if they are personally anti-gay rights and anti-abortion rights. This prioritization is something that white conservative evangelicals don’t seem to have the capacity to understand – largely b/c they’ve been taught a political of single-issue (abortion) voting for many decades and/or b/c of their difficultis to fully grap th structural/institutional elements of racism in America – prefering a more individualistic and relational solutions to how they perceive and understand racism.
3) I don’t know about “open,” but don’t you think there are not a few Black Churches that have practicing gays and lesbians in positions of srvice. Many churches do, conservative and liberal alike. You know the stereotypes about many male members of Black Churches in the church’s music ministry. I’m sure, as with other churches, LGBT individuals find positions to serve elsewhere. They might not be waving a public flag – but operating under a popular DOn’t Ask, Don’t Tell arrangement.
As an aside, I’ve found the literature/research on hyper-masculinity in thee Black Church and its relationship to African-American sexuality to be quite interesting. I first began reading the literature while working for Congressman John Lewis in Atlanta in 2004, where I attended a conference he sponsored with Surgeon General David Satcher on the problem of HIV (transmitted male to male) epidemic among men at HCBUs.
Dwight,
I much enjoyed reading this – especially having studied and written previous about this topic.
A few points of engagement in no particular order.
1) Obama’s affirmation of marriage equality perhaps served to “speed up” the Black Church’s embrace of equal rights for LGBT in the political sphere, but There was a growing contingent of notable African-American scholars and leaders years prior (even prior to Obama’s presidency) who were embracing gay rights as part of a civil rights agenda: most notably individuals such as John Lewis, Andrew Young, Julian Bond, Coretta Scot King and Freddy Haynes there in your backyard. The Congregational Black Caucus had moved to embrace gay rights (in various forms, notably support for hate crimes legislation and support for sexual orientation as a protected classification alongside race, ethnicity) prior to Obama’s Johnny-Come-Lately embrace of marriage equality.
2) Do I read you to say that the Black Church must fight gay rights in the political arena OR solely in the confines of the church? The latter is one place where I have not seen rapid progress — I do not know more than a handful or two of Black churches that are truly welcoming and affirming in the same way that white churches aree.
But if you mean fight must take place in th political arena….you are fundamentally expecting the Black Church to do something it’s really never done — which is to prioritize social issues. Just an analayiss of Black Church political behavior shows that African-American prioritize race and eeconomic issues when they go to the voting booth, even if they are personally anti-gay rights and anti-abortion rights. This prioritization is something that white conservative evangelicals don’t seem to have the capacity to understand – largely b/c they’ve been taught a political of single-issue (abortion) voting for many decades and/or b/c of their difficultis to fully grap th structural/institutional elements of racism in America – prefering a more individualistic and relational solutions to how they perceive and understand racism.
3) I don’t know about “open,” but don’t you think there are not a few Black Churches that have practicing gays and lesbians in positions of srvice. Many churches do, conservative and liberal alike. You know the stereotypes about many male members of Black Churches in the church’s music ministry. I’m sure, as with other churches, LGBT individuals find positions to serve elsewhere. They might not be waving a public flag – but operating under a popular DOn’t Ask, Don’t Tell arrangement.
As an aside, I’ve found the literature/research on hyper-masculinity in thee Black Church and its relationship to African-American sexuality to be quite interesting. I first began reading the literature while working for Congressman John Lewis in Atlanta in 2004, where I attended a conference he sponsored with Surgeon General David Satcher on the problem of HIV (transmitted male to male) epidemic among men at HCBUs.
Your comments were going into our spam folder – not sure why.
I realize this is anecdotal, however to date, the only transgendered “person” I have met and been around was a black pre-op male who dressed in tight revealing ladies clothes who was a fellow employee. “He” presented himself as, and interested with people as a female. Further, the majority of the other black employees welcomed and embraced this guy as a woman. I realize my black co-workers hardly represent the entire spectrum of black Americans, however it has made me question the idea that the African-American community is socially conservative. I have other examples of why I have come to conclude this, but they are off topic.
Another observation as it relates to the black church and the increasing acceptance of homosexuality. Consider the main stream Christian denominations and faith groups that have taken an approving stance on woman pastors and then later started to approve of homosexuality. UMC, PCUSA, the Episcopal Church USA, United Church of Christ, the liberal side of the WoF movement, even the CBF. To date, the only groups/denominations that have not followed this path are the AoG (and other fundamentalist side of the WoF) and ethnic churches such as the African-American church groups. Now we see that many african-american churches are apparently beginning to except homosexuality as normative. Now I am not saying there is a direct cause and effect, but it does make one wonder.
My purpose in bringing up a female Bishop was not to hijack this fine article from Mr. McKissic, rather to highlight the journey we have lived as a culture. From no-fault divorce to abortion on demand, peer forward and watch as the church has lost so much of her given power and authority by persistently abandoning scripture in favor of cultural acceptance.
My point is that American homosexual views, as they whirl around us, have a precedent with other equally divisive matters of church and with the State. We see a failing church fall to yet another deviancy from the truth of scripture. And proud of it.
The American culture breeds and feeds the kind of liberal ideology necessary for a Godless state. Lines of moral demarcation do not retrograde as if we learn our mistakes, They are repeatedly drawn in the sands further down the road of looseness, permissiveness and degradation.
Consider the schism in the Methodist church as of late. The African Methodist are holding the hard line in support of scripture while the Anglo Methodists lean the other way in support of culture compliance and popularity. One continues to see homosexual activity as a verb and the latter insists it to be a noun worthy of rights and constitutional protection. One boldly asserts the scripture as authoritative while the other dissects it in the laboratory of human intellect and design. We American Theologians are just superior in every way. Therefore…
“In most of Africa’s 54 countries, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people have to hide their sexual orientation for fear of persecution or criminal prosecution. South Africa is the only African country that permits gay or lesbian marriage.” Huffington Post. Kenyan Leaders tell Obama to leave “Gay Agenda” at Home.
Our own president led the charge against the bible he claims to know and against the church he claims to attend in favor of progressive cultural advancement. Such “enlightenment” escapes me. The good news is that many, though not nearly enough, of our churches also told President Obama to keep his Gay agenda in his own home.
The battle is not over. Contemporary culture has no intention of bowing to scripture but there is plenty of historical evidence to suggest that the church is in love with contemporary culture.
Brother McKissic,
Thank you for this well written and articulate article. I cannot express how much I appreciate the clarity and courage that you have brought to bear on this issue. I would love to have a conversation sometime with you about where you think that the Black Church might land on this topic in the future, and how the “breaks might be put on”?
Dwight, Just now saw the post. The “Black” church (I understand the context) does not have a corner on the homosexual burgeoning anti-christian belief and market place of degrading passion.
As you said, “just as the historic Black Church has stood strongly against the legalizing, normalizing and institutionalizing the immorality and insanity of racism, we must do likewise with homosexuality and with the same intensity and tenacity. Failure to do so may result in us seeing homosexuality mainstreamed in our lifetime.”
I think you are right. Unless we are all …”Black and White” (all colors of skin) make an effort to use our abilities and capacities to speak up and expose such abnormal behavior and lifestyles,… the lives attached to this degradation of passion will continue to spiral towards hell in greater numbers. And, the younger generation will have less and less understanding why! As I stood with you during the ABC activity…You can depend on me to stand on this important issue of the day.
Blessings to you my friend!
I love it when you do these kinds of posts. Makes us think.
I agree with your challenge to the Black Church, and THE CHURCH, but especially the Black Church as the stakes are higher. There needs to be a reformation concerning homosexuality and same sex marriage. I’m really doubting it’s possible. Only revival can do that.
President Obama’s mainstreaming of same sex marriage did irreparable damage. As to the extent of that irreparable damage, I don’t know. But the complexity of him being the first African-American POTUS and his Christianity and connection to the Black Church, did not help at all. To criticize him or this issue was to criticize civil rights, which is a shame. As you know, it’s embarrassing that he linked same sex marriage to civil rights. So then, the Black Church is stuck between a political and scriptural hard place.
My read for all churches is that it can’t be stopped. Same sex marriage is here to stay. And while President Obama will forever own it, he is not alone. Many on both sides of the politics own it also. But he mainstreamed it with civil rights for 7 years. And we now wonder why we have this situation? When that happened, he hurt the Black Church. Conservative Black Pastors did come out against it/him, but it was only a slap on the wrist.
I think each church will have to take care of itself on this issue. Denominations that are already leaving scripture and affirming same sex marriage are doomed. They won’t be back. While the National Baptist Convention has stay with scripture regarding same sex marriage, the political – spiritual tension I state is easily felt in these two responses. http://www.nationalbaptist.com/about-us/position-statements.html
We are truly living in the end times clouds. We should all live as 4th quarter pastors. It’s not easy. Being a friend with sinners while not getting burned is not easy, but that is what God wants use to do for the sake of lost souls.
This whole discussion brings up a topic I have been thinking about some off and on for the last year. As it relates to SBC [or Evangelical Churches in the USA generally] can it be shown that a move to affirm women as pastors / elders / ministers is a precursor to a particular congregation being “welcoming and affirming” as it relates to homosexuality?
I ask this because I know of a number of Baptist Churches — formerly SBC but now CBF — who have adopted language in their church constitution that states that they are asserting “the traditional Baptist position of congregational autonomy” to adopt rules which provide for an enhanced role of women in ministry.
In my view asserting “religious liberty” in arguing for an expanded role for women in ministry can not be logically conflated with being “welcoming and affirming” relative to homosexuality.
One topic is a matter of church polity. Maybe akin to arguing about Calvinism vs non Calvinism.
The other matter is endorsing activity which by any plain reading of scripture is never recognized as being “accepted” or “celebrated”.
Potentially the door is opening to a slippery slope. I think churches are going to have to navigate carefully. They are going to have to be explicit on where the boundaries are. I believe this is going to have to happen on a congregation by congregation basis.
Making a mistake about how you interpret I Timothy 3 is one thing. Making a mistake regarding your understanding homosexual behavior is an order of magnitude more serious.
Roger Simpson OKC
Roger, you said, “In my view asserting ‘religious liberty’ in arguing for an expanded role for women in ministry can not be logically conflated with being ‘welcoming and affirming’ relative to homosexuality.” I agree completely. Although this is anecdotal, I can say that I know a number of churches which allow for an “expanded” role for women, at least as the SBC currently seems to define that–which is amazingly narrow. (My own association has no problem with a church having a female paid to serve as “youth director,” but let her do the same thing for the same salary and be called “youth minister,” and they get all bent out of shape. As Shakespeare said, “A rose by any other smells as sweet,” yet we get all excited about titles which are not in the Bible at all.) But back to my point: I don’t know of any of those churches (including the one I serve) which is affirming to homosexual behavior. In fact, we just changed our constitution and by-laws to prohibit any homosexual “marriage” from taking place on the premises or in any way with the church’s blessing–and those passed with 100% margins. The “slippery slope” argument sounds logical, but I just do not see it happening in many, if any, such situations. I think the reason is exactly as you suggest: an interpretative difference in Scripture is not such a slope at all, while willful disagreement with the Word is beyond a slippery slope and all the way to a chasm.