[Psycho_Bunny]

I don't see a reason not to let gays join the church, but if the position of the convention is that homosexuality is a sin, they were right to kick out a church that allowed gays to hold positions in the hierarchy.

[CindyDawg]

Baptist churches take a voice vote regarding accepting new members. If the congregation believes homosexuality is a sin , then why would they bring in a member that does not plan to uphold the doctrine?

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

There is a difference between attending a church and being a member of a church.

Gays attending a church? That is exactly what God wants. He wants to present his love for them and call them out of their sin and into his glory.

Gays becoming members of a church? A slap in the face to the call of holiness and repudiation of sin that Christians are to embrace. By becoming a member, the church in question is saying that this person represents us and is a fellow traveler in our beliefs.

[jer33 3]

Once someone becomes a member of the church, then they are subject to church discipline. And church discipline is used with the intention to bring people back to a right relationship with God and repentance from sin. So the church would be in error not to confront a member who is willfully, deliberately living in sin. This is not confined to just homosexuality, but adultery, alcohol abuse, habitual lying, etc.

[George W. Bush]

The article doesn't include some important facts. A church who accepts practicing homosexuals into its membership can also elect them to church office or send them as representatives to state or national gatherings to further spread their message. If the NC state convention had not acted, at some point, the entire NC state convention would have been expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention, then those who were still faithful (the vast majority) would have formed a new association composed of those churches which would then join the Southern Baptist Convention again. If a church does not agree with its national convention, they are free to leave. In past years, there were a number of Baptist churches who went charismatic, also against SBC doctrine. There was another a few years back who elected a lesbian pastor too. They were all expelled. Given that Baptist churches are all independently owned and operated, the only basis for them to cooperate at all is that they hold to certain fundamental values. They don't have to preach them every week or every year. But they can't go against the common bond which is the entire basis for the state conventions and associations which are the only basis for even having a state or national convention.

Much as with the previous instance I mentioned with the lesbian pastor, you'll notice that they knew perfectly well they'd be expelled. And they voted to force the state convention to expel them. The state convention had been very patient and tried to convince them to return to the fold and to determine if they would stay and how not to offend some dissenting older members if they left. In the earlier case, and likely with this one, they just wanted to force their soon-to-be former brethren to expel them, knowing full well that they were the ones who had broken the fellowship.

Naturally, they are now free to join up with Jimmuh Carter and his Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a tiny liberal rival convention. That is where they belong. It says a lot about their character that they refused to part ways amicably and quietly.

Churches leave the conference all the time. Sometimes they just want to go purely evangelical. Sometimes they think the SBC is too strict on certain matters not justified in scripture (insisting that Jesus only drank unfermented grape juice in his entire life) or too lax in others (allowing clergy in the South to join Masonic lodges). But it is only news if some church breaks fellowship and goes liberal because they think that they should be more accepting of people who abuse their digestive tracts with members of their own sexual gratification. Now, you may not agree with that but Paul wrote of those who were among his faithful who were former sodomites and he did clearly view sodomy as a sin. And for Baptists, plain scriptural statements are everything.

[xzins]

I don't see a reason not to let gays join the church

Sure there is. Homosexuality is against nature and is evidence of idolatry.

A repentant, former homosexual is an entirely different thing. But this article leads one to believe that that was not a requirement.

The Baptist convention had to stand up for biblical truth.

[Gilbo_3]

attending is okay, but allowing to join is condoning the sin...

[Moby Grape]

“I don’t see a reason not to let gays join the church, but if the position of the convention is that homosexuality is a sin, they were right to kick out a church that allowed gays to hold positions in the hierarchy.”

The scripture, and particularly the Apostle Paul, is 100% clear about the issue. The church is to minister to ALL sinners, including the sin of homosexaulity...but, the scripture is clear that the church is not to allow those who continue to sin to STAY in the church if they do not repent. So, a church that would allow homosexuals to be members (but not leaders as you say) would be allowing those who continue to sin to be members in good standing....just can’t do that.

It would be the same as suggesting the practicing ADULTERS can continue to be members in good standing, but cannot be leaders...