A Devout Uncertainty: Homosexuality and the Church
By Dr. Frank Tupper • Jul 2nd, 2009 • Category: thinking“A DEVOUT UNCERTAINTY”:
WHAT IS THE WILL OF GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST TODAY?
I would not present this section of my discussion of homosexuality to a workshop at the Annual Gathering of CBF, because a panel discussion would occur with different Baptist voices representing all four of these broad viewpoints. However, I am not in a workshop with a panel discussion. Though some might think it unnecessary, I am deeply indebted to students in my classes at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for more than twenty years and particularly to the students of the Divinity School of Wake Forest University for the last ten years. About half the students in Christian theology are Baptists, but nonBapist students generally reflect the same concerns and difficulty of their Baptist friends. One fundamental difference: I lecture on “Homosexuality and the Church” with gay and lesbian Christian students who are commitment to Christ and Christian ministry sitting alongside predominantly straight students in the classroom. Thus “homosexuality” becomes more than an issue because “homosexual” inheres in the identity of some students and constitutes a major concern for heterosexual students. Though most pastors and church leaders never engage the issue of “Christian faith and homosexuality,” gay and lesbian Christians worship in moderate Baptist churches every Sunday morning alongside their straight brothers and sisters. Their friends know who they are, and their mutual experience of worship generates conversation about issues of faith occur from time to time. This section on “Devout Uncertainty” generally reflects the experience and attitude of most students in my classes, Baptists and nonBaptists alike. On “a blog” of their creation and attention, their voices can be heard.
Nevertheless, I say far more here than I would say in an open discussion. Why voice it here? Older persons in practically all denominational entities exercise organizational leadership—just as they do in their own local churches. The voices of younger persons committed to Christian ministry are often not heard or simply dismissed. Although this section has been written on short notice and requires revision, it does provide an opportunity for voices on both sides of the generational divide to be heard. Though the question of the attitude of the church toward homosexual persons is essentially not “a conservative or liberal issue” but a generational divide, we can nonetheless engage in serious study and conversation together for the benefit of all. Yet everyone changes in one way or the other in dialogue, regardless of attitude and viewpoint. Many homosexual Christians and often their families wait in hope for change, for the dawning of new creation. However, waiting on an unarrived future significantly damages, even devastates the integrity of the church in its witness to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Like alleged thinking Baptists, these unwanted and unwelcome children of the church, wait in silence. These homosexual Baptist Christians know that they are thought to be untouchable and unclean. They are lepers excluded from the public life of the church. In the meantime church congregations wait in silence, knowing already that custom and culture will change. They wait in silence, because silence remains the most comfortable attitude. However, many homosexuals, their families, and their friends—inside and outside Baptist church life—will turn away or simply leave a onetime nurturing community of faith that does not practice the hospitality evidenced throughout the ministry of Jesus. There is absolutely nothing “missional” in this strategy.
Various Christians in practically every congregation remain unsure about revising church teaching in relation to homosexuality and same-sex unions. They stand inside the tradition of the church in prayer, bible study, worship, and service. If you were to insist that these devoted Christians make a decision on the issue of homosexuality in the church today, most (I think) would stand in church tradition with the compassion they sense in “welcome but not affirming,” edgy nonetheless in the midst of change. They do not want to pass judgment on this issue, because any public posture is less than certain in the moral ambiguity of this issue. However, for many other Christians, quite aware of the uncertainty amid moral ambivalence, the question of the integrity of gay discipleship is more than an issue. “Homosexual” refers to specific names and faces of those whom they know through the congregational life of the church. They have been in Sunday School classes and Youth Choirs. They are accepted with the friendship of most of their peers with whom they have grown up within the community of faith. These “homosexual” persons are children of the church whom we love. Indeed, some of those who identify themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” are our children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Often they have been dedicated to God in a service of blessing at their birth. Many have grown up and into the life of the church, and we have witnesses their confession of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord (somewhere between 9 to 12 years of age). They are baptized Christian believers. What does it mean to love a homosexual person in the community of faith?
Then adolescence breaks through occasions new realities in their lives. A few, among the best of them, have no adolescent interest in the opposite sex. On the contrary, they realize slowly or surprisingly discover or shockingly recognize, “I am different.” They know their sense of difference inheres in their depths of sexuality. Eventually some say, “I am gay,” leaving the church as a “place” that does not welcome or love them any longer. Others stay inside the church, but they continue to be welcomed as Christians of integrity through the same friends with whom they have participated in countless church activities. Yet their sexual identity evokes little verbal discussion, because their friends in their (onetime) Youth Group do not exclude them but continue to accept them. To be sure, there is a clear division in the community of faith: Older persons who have invested in the life of the church during their adult years, who are the Bible teachers and Baptist interpreters of church, generally stand in church tradition: The question of homosexuality is a clear-cut issue that Christian churches have resoundingly rejected for centuries—from the earliest traditions in the beginning of New Testament churches. Younger persons reflect a very different perspective. “Homosexuals” are persons they know in the mutuality of friendship, and they accept them inside and outside the church as authentic persons worthy of respect.
Most of the older leadership of the church finds the open attitude of the younger generations to toward homosexuality to be causal and uninformed. They have not listened to the teaching of the Bible in areas of sexuality fidelity, and they have absorbed the contemporary cultural attitude that they have experienced at school and elsewhere. A word of caution at this point: The younger generations in church life are not naïve, for they know what their elders think and why they think it. The older generation has lived through the civil rights movement and seen the partial dismantlement of Jim Crow segregation; they observed the woman’s sexual revolution and their experience of freedom in the life of the church; they often experienced the public “embarrassment” of divorce, especially in the church. The younger generations think and say to one another: “Our church was wrong on every issue—racial segregation in schools and public facilities; the pain of divorce but worth of the divorced person; women’s rights extended beyond voting to education and opportunity; unanimity in support of war, any war. These younger believers often do not know the Bible in any fashion comparable to their elders. They have concluded: “All of them found in the Bible what they already believed. Nothing else.”
These young people have not engaged in any serious Bible study about the subject of homosexuality, of same-sex relationships. Bible study did not help their parents, teachers and preachers on the crucial issues they faced. However, they love their gay friends, and the circles of friendship continue to grow beyond public school to university life to their participation in young adult classes in other churches. They look at their parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts, beloved Bible teachers and Baptist advocates: They have asked them many questions over the years about the attitude of “white people” toward “black people” during the Jim Crow years of segregation and the murder of civil rights activists. Since one of their parents has been divorced, a Christian parent, they do not understand the contradiction of the words of Jesus and Paul with the relatively recent acceptance of divorce in church life and leadership. In the last decade or so they have seen their churches elect women as deacons and elders, though some remain quite opposed to women preachers and pastors. The churches, its teachers and preachers, those who guided them in their younger years—they sometimes admit that they were “partly wrong” in the turbulent years of significant social change, but they explain it was “a different time,” not much more. Why do the same people who opposed school desegregation, open public facilities, the leadership of divorced persons in church life, the continuing role of women in church worship—why are they so sure now that they are right now about the exclusion of “gay persons” from the friendship of Jesus?
Though some of their elders want to distinguish between liberal and conservative viewpoints on the issue of the acceptance of homosexual persons, many, perhaps most of the younger adults and youth in the congregation know it is not a liberal/conservative issue but an older/younger issue, a generational divide. They are bothered when their heterosexual and homosexual friends drop out of church, but many of their heterosexual friends (and couples) often find their way back. Of course, church people are talkers, and they talk about everything in small groups of like-mindedness. They don’t argue with each other very much. The “middle-aged” Baptists can speak eloquently about the importance of the separation of church and state. (Is it really a problem?) Everybody gets excited about next mission trip of the church to South America or Eastern Europe, because they really do provide help to struggling Christians thousands of miles away.
However, they do not talk much about what our church should do in relation to persons who are not straight but gay. They exclude them with dead silence. The apparent difference between these generations has less to do with what they have learned to really believe than the persons they accept in genuine conversation. They do not know any gay and lesbian persons (or that a person they know is gay or lesbian). They have never engaged them in conversation about the significance of their “Christian faith” in the way they live life and often live in monogamous relationships. “The issue has gotten all mixed up with politics and the homosexual ‘agenda’—too divisive and too emotional.” So Baptists today by and large what they did throughout the second half of the twentieth century. These “thinking Baptists” (called moderates) demonstrate in their silence their unwillingness to engage in Bible study or church conversation about the most “divisive” question in American life today: Are gay and lesbian persons created in the image of God? Can homosexual persons be recreated in the image of Christ—but remain homosexual? Must the church wait until the “humanism” of our culture changes attitudes outside and inside the community of faith? Are the people in my church able to disagree with each other and talk about controversial issues as “Christians” and “moderate Baptists” with continuing respect and love for one another? Of course, these kind of conversations require years of back and forth, not weeks, and variations of differences will remain.
The truth is that most congregations have not studied the issue of homosexuality in the Bible from various Christian viewpoints, and they have not engaged in serious conversation with each other in recognition of the moral ambiguity in any option chosen. Yet they do recognize that homosexuality is not a question that simply hinges on a majority vote (as though 51 per cent eliminates the difficulty and moral ambiguity in defining the best viewpoint). Most active Baptists I know experience at this point in time some measure of what I call “a devout uncertainty,” a faithful hesitancy in the encounter with the moral ambiguity about God’s attitude toward persons born homosexual. They are committed to the integrity of the Church in faithfulness to Christ, and simultaneously they generally refuse to exercise violence on anyone—those with whom they agree and disagree. Is it an act of violence to exclude homosexual Christians from the life of the church? Of course, it would be an act of violence to superimpose a majority viewpoint on a congregation, whatever the majority might be. Furthermore, if the church must be concerned about accepting and understanding homosexual persons, as the proponents for “affirmation and celebration” insist, the Christian community must maintain the same concern for other members of the congregation who remain “welcoming but rethinking not affirming”—what I have (awkwardly) called “devout uncertainty.” Since gay as well as straight persons are children of the church, children of our extended families, children in our own household, and already children of God, we could welcome heterosexual and homosexual persons alike. Perhaps in an eventual larger conversation, a congregation talking to the gay and lesbian Christians within its congregational life, a genuine consensus with “ifs” and “buts” will emerge. However, Baptists can be contentious, disorderly, and unloving in articulating a specific point of view on almost any issue. If we attempt to follow the attitude that characterized Jesus, if we read the letters of Paul from both sides of every argument, e. g. the role of women in the church, without claiming Paul’s “apostolic authority” over those with whom we differ, perhaps—perhaps—thoughtful Baptists can come to a friendly consensus without the devastation of verbal, attitudal, and doctrinal violence.
You can find the opening post here and the 4 different views presented (1,2,3,4). Big Daddy Weave, Pop Theology, and Baptimergent have also blogged about this series.
Dr. Frank Tupper is an ordained Baptist minister and Professor of Theology in the founding faculty of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity. In 1973 he began a distinguished career teaching theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary before coming to Wake Forest University where he would get to have both Chad and Tripp in his theology class at the same time!!!
Email this author | All posts by Dr. Frank Tupper
Frank said,
“Is it an act of violence to exclude homosexual Christians from the life of the church? Of course, it would be an act of violence to superimpose a majority viewpoint on a congregation, whatever the majority might be.”
These are two important points of injustice.
I think many older leaders are afraid that younger leaders are demanding a clear stance in favor of “welcoming & celebrating.” This is simply not the case. We are demanding a real conversation.
Perhaps the greatest value of a honest conversation is that the biblical wisdom of older leaders and the relational wisdom of the younger can find a place of relative harmony. That is, if we are allowed the space to talk about together.
Thanks for your voice Frank, and for owning your responsibility to the next generation of clergy.
Frank,
As a queer woman who is also a Christ-follower, i appreciated your post. i think you bring up some valid points in this very important and necessary conversation.
You said, ‘These young people have not engaged in any serious Bible study about the subject of homosexuality, of same-sex relationships.’ i disagree a bit because the young people i run into are studying the BIBLE and reading outside sources that look at the clobber passages ‘against’ homosexuality in renewed fashion, and thus, rethinking previously held beliefs/interpretations of their parents/churches. i just think they are more open to seriously rethinking their beliefs and considering their parents/churches could be wrong.
i also agree with your statement that, ‘The truth is that most congregations have not studied the issue of homosexuality in the Bible from various Christian viewpoints, and they have not engaged in serious conversation with each other in recognition of the moral ambiguity in any option chosen./ SO VERY TRUE! This is one of desires – to have a safe space where both sides can dialogue and converse and learn.
i would LOVE to extend an invitation to you to contribute to my group blog, Queermergent, if you’d be interested. Check out the site and contact me if interested in continuing the conversation you began here!
http://queermergent.com/
Blessings!
Adele
i do agree with you when you said, ‘The younger generations think and say to one another: “Our church was wrong on every issue—racial segregation in schools and public facilities; the pain of divorce but worth of the divorced person; women’s rights extended beyond voting to education and opportunity; unanimity in support of war, any war.’ They see the inconsistencies and begin questioning which is healthy and good.
Thank you Dr. Tupper for a job well done. Thank you for trying to open our eyes to an area we keep avoiding in our churches, the need for conversation on the subject of homosexuals. This particular subject has been an issue with me for many, many years. Even before my dear gay friend and I began our friendship I was aware of people being treated differently because of their sexual orientation. Walking along side him was heart breaking but really opened my eyes to an area that I, along with other church members, had over looked or avoided. In my particular church every time we try to have a conversation on any controversial subject we get into a very heated battle. My high blood pressure cannot take heated battles and others are in my position. We need help in learning how to converse before we begin a conversation on this subject. I have a feeling other churches are in the same boat. It is my dream that people such as yourself would begin the process that you want to see happen, by teaching us how to converse in a “loving” manner, recognizing the need for self control while at the same time honestly voicing there thoughts. We all need to think before we speak. Once again I thank you and hope that this will not be the last we hear from you on this or any subject. What you have to say must be put out in any way that we can. You have contributed through your books and speaking engagements but now you have a new avenue, the internet, where you can reach millions. Thanks !!!!
Thank you for this series. I hope it sparks SOME kind of discussion among moderate Baptists.
Though most gay and lesbian young people end up leaving the church, some of them stay, and some of them even are our ministers and staff and they hold positions of leadership. For these people who are still “in the closet,” the silence on this issue is particularly devastating as their careers, ministries, friends, professional network, and families are all potentially threatened by any wrong move or any ambiguous word. As a gay, closeted minister in a moderate baptist church, I pray that soon more people will speak for those of us who are unable to speak.
I think this link’s article will add additional information to Dr. Tupper’s postings on homosexuals, etc.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abpnews.com%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_conten&h=0cf4988a89561dc48f77211c8d7b9197al info to Dr. Tupper’s posting on homosexuality.
Such musings, while eloquent and erudite, are simply sophistry. The fact is homosexuality is a sin and unrepentant sinners are not Christians. What Dr. Tupper proposes is, quite frankly, heresy. “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth.” The Bible and Christian tradition has been absolutely clear on these issues.
Matthew, while I appreciate your thoughts on this subject I must totally disagree with you. Homosexuality in and of its self is not a sin. God created each and every one of us. There are no two people on this earth that are the same. We are all God’s children based on the fact that God created us. God created nothing that was not GOOD. Our sexual orientation is built into us as part of our DNA. We can no more change that than we can change the fact that we inherited things from our parents such as the possibility of someday being a diabetic, etc. It is part of who we are. To deny a person the right to fall in love and marry the person of choice is a SIN. We are all sinners by the way including you. The fact that we are born with a specific sexuality has been known for many years but now it can be proved. When the bible was written this was not known and it is my thinking that the verses to prove your point really do not prove what you make them out to be. When I read the stories about Jesus and what the authors contribute to him as being his words, you will note that everythig was about LOVE. Loving your neighbor means every person on the face of this earth as well as its creatures. To condem a person because of the way he/she was born appears to me to be a far greater sin than what you speak of. Take the log out of your own eye, is a caution to each of us. Dr. Tupper is one of the most wonderful people I know and a great author, theologian and student himself of others. I agree with his stand and his attempt at healing this world. These are my thoughts only. I am not trying to condem you but to pose another point of view in love.
Ms. Goodson, first there is no scientific evidence that homosexual behavior is genetic. Even if there were such conclusive evidence, it doesn’t matter for Christianity. Christian theology and tradition is clear on this and other sexual issues. The Apostle Paul was absolutely clear. Respectfully, you and Dr. Tupper appear to not understand the theology of marriage that arises from the central unity principle found in Genesis 2:23-25 and reiterated in the NT. Simply put, God created marriage as a extension of his act of creation and a representation of his redemptive work in the world. This is why orthodoxy has consistently throughout history saw behavior outside of this arrangement has a perversion of the Gospel message. So aligned is marriage with God redemptive message (Eph 5), that Paul told Timothy that if a person refuses to care for his family he has “denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Again, “love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth.” Love does not mean that “anything goes” as long as you are nice and friendly. I’m sure you haven’t reached the point that you gloss over the cross of Christ? The cross was the highest loving act by God. Why? Because of sinful nature. This is why I say all the above is sophistry. It is about rationalizing our guilt away. It really isn’t intellectually honest. Many people want to have their spiritual cake and eat it too. What other sins according to Christianity do you wish to rationalize away? There are many, many sexual dysfunctions besides homosexuality. Are those all God ordained too?
Matthew, again I cannot agree with you and do not wish to get into a biblical debate with you. You have the right to your beliefs just as I do. I know of no greater scholar/theologian/preacher/teacher/ person than Dr. Frank Tupper. His interpretation of scripture is quite accurate in my opinion and millions of other Christian scholars. Do not mock what he says in such a manner. You seemed to have skipped over Genesis I. When we live by our head only we get into a great deal of trouble. I have always been a lay theologian/seeker of truth, etc. and continue to study the newest and best Christian writers and theologians to help me form my beliefs. My experiences of God and personal relationships with God’s children have led me away from such a conservative/orthodxy set of standards that we must all abide by. Love as Jesus taught us does not gloss over the commandments as there are only two, love God, love neighbor, love self. It appears that you have a check list of rules to follow and anything outside of those “rules” is not to be. I am sorry but I cannot buy that kind of “religion.” Become friends with folks that are unlike you. Have conversations with them. Love them as Jesus asked us to and maybe you will change your mind. “THOSE” people are God’s children just as much as you and I. Not all people that are LGBT labeled are living a Christian life but many are and their sins are just like ours no more and no less. Do not punish those you do not understand or even want to. The concepts in the old Testament were not thrown away by Jesus but, put very simply, updated by Him. Paul was raised a Jew and at the time of his writings he was just learning the teachings of Jesus and future study shows where he made some mistakes in his judgement of what a Christian should or could be. God did not dictate either the Old of New Testament, only inspired the authors. Again give Dr. Tupper some more thought and read his two books they have helped so many of us and can help you. It is not heresy !!!!
“genetics plays no role in sexuality” this just in from the flat earth society!
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. You’re views in this matter (which I respect enough to contradict) are heterodox and rejected by the majority of Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox churches. You wish to pledge allegiance to Christ but refuse to abide by what he says and the New Testament. Loving others does not mean I ignore the destructive behaviors in their lives that alienate them from God and negatively impact others. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. If you place no authority in scripture or the foundational and historical teachings of the church, why are you wasting your time being a Christian at all? Isn’t a Christian one who has accepted revelatory truths? Dr. Tupper, I suppose, is a nice man but he is no Apostle Paul. No wonder you want to avoid a scripture debate, you don’t believe the Christian writings. BTW, if Dr. Tupper was such an expert in all this, why has he ignored such a foundational Christian theology? This is heresy at it core because, by definition, it rejects the clear principles of scripture and the church. (Please don’t interpret my tone as angry; I’m just being succinct and honest.)
P.S. Deacon Burrley, genetics plays a role in everything but unless you are willing to deny the concept of free will because of it, this is merely a straw doll.
Here is a story. When I was an associate minister of missions at a local Baptist church, I had the privilege of leading a young, gay man, with AIDS to the Lord. He felt the love of our willingness to touch him and pray with him. He repented of his sins (including homosexuality) and was accepted into the fellowship of believers. Why is it, therefore, as is thought by some, that I must reject the most basic and foundational ethic of the church in order to be faithful to Christ’s teaching on love? God forbid! Love RESCUES NOT RATIONALIZES. Humanity is messed up in many ways and there are other dysfunctions that people have that could just as easily be rationalized away. I could say that people were born with a genetic predisposition to view pornography or be addicted to drugs and alcohol. Instead of trying to explain away sin, we ought to be explaining the redemptive power of the gospel to save us from sin.
Matthew, at this point I must just say I will go no further with this as I totally do not agree with you. Let’s say I love and respect the LGBT community, I am not jugemental and will leave that up to God. I know the person you led to Christ is most grateful but as their being a homosexual and then changed to either celibacy or hetorosexual, I think there was no need to change. Let’s just agree to disagree and let it go at that. God Bless you !!!
“One fundamental difference: I lecture on “Homosexuality and the Church” with gay and lesbian Christian students who are commitment to Christ and Christian ministry sitting alongside predominantly straight students in the classroom.”
This is self-contradictory. A commitment to Christ and Christian ministry presupposes a commitment to the teachings of Christ and his apostles.
This statement is EXTREMELY OVERSTATED:
“Various Christians in practically every congregation remain unsure about revising church teaching in relation to homosexuality and same-sex unions. They stand inside the tradition of the church in prayer, bible study, worship, and service. If you were to insist that these devoted Christians make a decision on the issue of homosexuality in the church today, most (I think) would stand in church tradition with the compassion they sense in “welcome but not affirming,” edgy nonetheless in the midst of change.”
Most churches and Christians have clarity on this issue because the Bible and historical Christianity have been clear. Baptists have believed in the priesthood of the believer and freedom of religion but until recently have they dared to deny some of the most foundational understandings of the gospel. Baptists are orthodox when it comes to basic Christianity. Dr. Tipper lives in an ivory tower where everything is tenuous and this distorts his view on the church as a whole.
This is a false-dichotomy.
“…The question of homosexuality is a clear-cut issue that Christian churches have resoundingly rejected for centuries—from the earliest traditions in the beginning of New Testament churches. Younger persons reflect a very different perspective. “Homosexuals” are persons they know in the mutuality of friendship, and they accept them inside and outside the church as authentic persons worthy of respect.”
There are many “older” Christians who are friends with gay people and reject the clear-cut teaching of Christian churches. Dr. Tipper apparently is one of them. There are many “young” people who have not spit in the face of “the earliest traditions in the beginning of the New Testament churches” and yet have friends who are gay. I work with hundreds of young people everyday and they long for orthodoxy not the wishy-washy, ambivalent, and uncertain faith of liberal churches. This is a false dichotomy because it assumes that either you love gay people by affirming their behavior or don’t love them at all. Rubbish! Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth.
This is equivocation fallacy (and forgive me, absurd):
“They are committed to the integrity of the Church in faithfulness to Christ, and simultaneously they generally refuse to exercise violence on anyone—those with whom they agree and disagree. Is it an act of violence to exclude homosexual Christians from the life of the church? Of course, it would be an act of violence to superimpose a majority viewpoint on a congregation, whatever the majority might be.”
You can see how absurd this argument is by replacing the moral issue at hand, which Dr. Tipper is amiable and replace it with one he would “violently” disagree. “Is it an act of violence to exclude nudist Christians from the life of the church?” (Yes, they exist!) For heaven’s sake, Christians cannot fellowship with everyone! Can Baptists and Wiccans join together at the Winter Sol for a nude dance? It is more “natural” to go naked is it not? How many nudists wait in silence for Christians to quit doing them violence by excluding them from worship! They are only being EXACTLY how God created them to be–absolutely naked. “Of course, it would be an act of violence to superimpose a majority viewpoint on a congregation.” We should be loving like Christ and welcome and celebrate the nudists too! Tell me how this is different?
Okay, Dr Tipper just opens himself for this! Do Dr. Tipper’s principles only apply for gay people? Here is a slight rewording of another quote from Dr. Tipper:
“Since [naked] as well as [clothed] persons are children of the church, children of our extended families, children in our own household, and already children of God, we could welcome [puritans] and [nudist] persons alike. Perhaps in an eventual larger conversation, a congregation talking to the [male and female nudists] Christians within its congregational life, a genuine consensus with “ifs” and “buts” will emerge.” [I know the "butts" will emerge!] LOL. I’m sorry but this is so absurd I couldn’t resist!
His final words are ad hominem circumstantial:
“However, Baptists can be contentious, disorderly, and unloving in articulating a specific point of view on almost any issue. If we attempt to follow the attitude that characterized Jesus, if we read the letters of Paul from both sides of every argument, e. g. the role of women in the church, without claiming Paul’s “apostolic authority” over those with whom we differ, perhaps—perhaps—thoughtful Baptists can come to a friendly consensus without the devastation of verbal, attitudal, and doctrinal violence.”
Perhaps Jesus could have been more like Dr. Tipper when he called the religious people of his day “snakes and vipers” or “white-washed tombs.” Maybe if we read the “other side” of Paul’s letters where he called the Judiazers “those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh” we would find Dr. Tipper’s quiet and unassuming disposition? Maybe Dr. Tipper should scold the Apostle Paul for being contentious when he told them: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal. 5:12). Poor Jude! Why couldn’t he have worked to find a friendly consensus without the devastation of saying, “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 7). Such violence! I wonder what verbal verbal, attitudal, and doctrinal violence waits me for all my posts today? Or will there be more of the “silence” Dr. Tipper seems to abhor?