I’ll join the long list of bloggers putting forth their thoughts about the situation between Ft. Worth’s Broadway Baptist Church and the SBC’s executive committee regarding a motion made from the floor of the convention in Indianapolis last June to withdraw fellowship from the church because it was no longer in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC as a result of what the messenger who made the motion called actions which affirm, endorse or approve of homosexual behavior. 

First, I want to commend the executive committee’s sub-team that handled the recomendation for listening to the church and postponing action until the entire situation could be clarified.  Actually, the process took a good turn when it was referred to the executive committee in the first place, rather than be subjected to a straight up vote at a convention meeting.  The messengers would have largely been voting on hearsay, in somewhat of a hothouse atmosphere, whereas referring the motion allowed the executive committee to gather facts first.  Broadway is well known as a church at the heart of the moderate Baptist camp, pastored by both Weldon Gaddy and Cecil Sherman, and most recently by Brett Younger, all well known moderate Baptists.  It could have been easy for the executive committee to just make note of that and take this as a last straw.  But that’s not what happened.

I must also commend Broadway Baptist Church.  Through all of the more than 30 years of the conservative vs. moderate controversy in the SBC, Broadway has staunchly stood for its own principled interpretation of scripture and practice of faith, yet it has also remained faithful to its relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention.  It has been a rocky relationship, at times downright hostile, but the church has continued to support its committment to the Cooperative Program.  There are those who have encouraged them just to drop it, to save themselves money and trouble and just exit the SBC, but in spite of the trouble, they’ve stayed.  That is a sign, perhaps, that moderates and conservatives can still find common ground on which to cooperate, and at the very least that the SBC is perhaps not as rabidly fundamentalist as some of its accusers might think.  There were many who thought that Broadway’s “directory controversy” last year would be the last straw, and at least one messenger at the convention tried to make it so, but so far, cooler heads have prevailed.

The dialogue that has occurred is definitely encouraging. 

Clearly, the church values its relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention, whatever form that might have taken in the recent past.  The leaders delegated to represent the church in front of the executive committee have been adamant in insisting that the church has not taken any action which violates the particular SBC bylaw in question and that it, in fact, follows the Biblical teaching regarding homosexuality.  There have been those who have stepped up to say the church is not telling the whole truth, but is hiding some evidence which might be brought forward to prove otherwise.  But this is a matter that is being handled by the church within the boundaries of its independence and autonomy.  There is no way for an outsider to know everything that is an internal church affair.  And that appears to be why the executive committee, rather than tossing the church out with a smug, self-righteous flair, has tabled the matter until further discussion can occur, allowing the church time to wrestle with the request that has been made of them and come to a conclusion. 

The church has clearly taken action which ministers to persons of a homosexual orientation, of that there is no doubt.  But in so doing, have they “endorsed” or “approved” of the behavior, or are they acknowledging that it, like any other sinful act, exists, and that people caught up in it have no hope unless they find faith in Christ?  They have gone further out on a limb in this regard, so to speak, than most other Baptist churches would be comfortable doing, but as an independent, autonomous body, they are responsible for their own decisions and ultimately accountable to God alone.  I certainly cannot judge them.  As far as what they have presented to the executive committee, I must take them at their word. 

So, it appears that we have two groups of Baptists, thought by many to be incompatible, actually praying and working to find a win-win solution to a problem.  The church has committed to find a way to meet the executive committee’s recommendation, the executive committee has given the church time and latitude to wrestle with things and come to a conclusion.  The words pray, seek the Spirit, search the scriptures, were used by individuals from both the church and the executive committee.  Those of us discussing this on blogs, from one perspective or another, would be well advised to simply join them in those activities at the moment, and make sure everything in our own hearts are right with God.


About LS

I'm 56, happily married for 25 years, B.A., M.A., career educator with experience in education as a teacher and administrator, native Arizonan living in Pennsylvania, working on a PhD and a big fan of the Arizona Wildcats, mainly in football and basketball.

32 responses

  1. Jack Matthews says:

    Lyn Robbins, the church’s lawyer, and one of its members who went to the EC meeting, made an excellent point on his blog. He noted that the SBC constitution does not specifically define what actions constitute “endorsement, approval or affirmation” of homosexual behavior. If church membership does it, then it would be very difficult for the ex/com to boot Broadway on that basis alone, considering all of the other sins church members are known to commit “openly.” Is it placing them in “leadership” positions? That might do it, though what is considered “leadership” in some churches is not in all. My church considers the pastor, teachers, and elders as leaders, deacons and committee members as servants and if Broadway did the same, they have not placed any openly gay members in leadership. I think the ex/com is getting an up close, very good lesson in distinguishing between what is an active ministry to persons of homosexual orientation as opposed to what constitutes “endorsement, approval or affirmation” of homosexual behavior.

  2. Joe Blackmon says:

    Broadway Baptist does not have homosexual visitors, it has homosexual members. By virtue of the fact that they know these people are living in open defiance of God’s word the church in its silence is passively endorsing said defiance. This is actually a very clear cut, open and shut case. It shouldn’t take additional study for the Executive committe to do the right thing. There is only one question to be asked–do you have homosexual members? If yes, then you are not in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC. Thank you. We have some lovely parting gifts for you on the way out. May God grant you repentance.

  3. BNeill says:

    Money is the root and the reason for Broadway Baptist Church’s balancing act with the Southern Baptist Convention. If Broadway does not remain in friendly cooperation with the SBC it will loose its professional music staff because four of them teach at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. They need that staff to draw the large choir and maintain the professional music program with the magnificant organ donated by Van Cliburn, the most famous of their several openly homosexual members. Mr. Cliburn attends with his openly gay partner.

    Broadway is transgressing both the spirit and the letter of the SBC’s policy on homosexual behavior. Official SBC policy says “Christians should oppose … all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography.”

    The official letter from the church contains at least two specific lies. “. . . we [Broadway] do not endorse, approve, or affirm homosexual behavior.” Broadway (and especially the staff) is very vocal in telling those members who openly practice homosexual behavior that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Jorene Swift Jorene Swift taught a Wednesday series which concluded homosexual behavior is not a sin. The staff ostrasizes any member who believes or is outspoken about homosexual behavior being a sin. They ask them to leave.

    The news articles state, “The five [homosexuals] joined Broadway Baptist by letter from other churches, and it only later was discovered they were homosexual, committee members were told.” That also is a lie. The fact of their homesexuality was well known when they joined the church. One lesbian is the daughter of a staff member. Two lesbians were even baptised together as a “family.”

    Broadway has many more than 5 people openly practicing homosexual behavior — and that behavior is approved by the church. One is chair of the Worship Committee and one was chair last year of the Stewardship Education Committee. Several have led in worship on Sunday morning on the platform on many occassions. And all were known to be practicing homosexuals when they joined the church.

  4. Jack Matthews says:

    But, Joe, how many members of SBC churches are living in open defiance of God’s word in other sins. Adulterers come to mind, whether they’ve actually committed the sin physically, or in their heart, they are guilty. Liars? Cheats? And as pointed out on the previous blog article, there are known sexual predators still in pulpits.

    Regardless, the SBC bylaw does not specify that a gay or lesbian person holding membership constitutes endorsement, approval or affirmation of homosexual behavior.

    As far as BNeill’s remarks here go, I see allegations, without proof.

    I wouldn’t be in favor of a church “endorsing, approving or affirming” homosexual behavior, any more than I am in favor of a church endorsing, approving or affirming any sinful behavior. But the question comes down to who gets to pitch the first rock.

  5. Joe Blackmon says:


    The issue at Broadway isn’t about other kinds of sins. It is about the fact that they have homosexual members. If they had people who were committing adultry (there is no way to know if someone is committing adultry in their hearts unless they tell you) then those people should also be removed from membership after going through the process outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. If a church tolerated adultery, sexual predators, or any other sin where the person was unrepentant then that church should also be removed. If churches won’t deal with sin that lack of dealing with the sin is sin in itself.

    However, that does not mean that Broadway Baptist should be permitted to continue being affiliated with the SBC.

  6. “Regardless, the SBC bylaw does not specify that a gay or lesbian person holding membership constitutes endorsement, approval or affirmation of homosexual behavior.”

    This is true. But as with any organization’s constitution, the governing board is entrusted with the duty of interpretation. At the moment, the Executive Committee has that duty.

    Southern Baptists are big on Original Intent. So, if the EC applies an originalist hermeneutic when interpreting Article III, I’m pretty confident that they will more than likely find that Broadway has violated their Constitution.

    What did the messengers understand those words – endorsement, approval or affirmation – to mean back in 1993?

    I have a feeling that today’s Southern Baptist orthodoxy is not generous enough to allow for openly gay and lesbian members and persons in leadership positions. Personally, I don’t see a huge difference between service and leadership – seems to be a distinction without a difference or at least without a meaningful difference.

  7. Joe Blackmon says:

    I have a feeling that today’s Southern Baptist orthodoxy is not generous enough to allow for openly gay and lesbian members and persons in leadership positions.

    People that aren’t saved shouldn’t be in leadership positions in church. Unrepentant homosexuality is proof that a person is not saved. Unrepentant homosexuals should not be permitted in leadership positions in a church.

  8. Lee says:

    Broadway is an independent, autonomous church. It is, apparently, dealing with this situation in the way the EC asked them to do. Beyond that, it is a local church matter and the EC is demonstrating respect for that by not jumping to conclusions or acting on allegations. It appears that the EC is letting the church respond and if their response falls in line with what they asked for, they will remain part of the SBC.

    Part of the confusion here results from the fact that this particular bylaw is not consistent with scripture. By singling out this particular “sin,” the SBC is declaring that some sin is worse than other sin, which is a theological error. To correct this, the bylaw should state that any church which endorses, affirms or approves of any sin by not practicing Biblical church discipline toward members known to be in an unrepentant, sinful condition of any kind is not considered to be in “friendly cooperation” with the convention.

    At the very least that would be fair, wouldn’t it?

  9. Jack Matthews says:

    What I find somewhat incredible is how many people who are neither on the EC nor members of Broadway Baptist seem to have a handle on what is best to do, without even knowing what is going on. God’s whole purpose in sending Jesus to die for our sin was to provide us with grace and save us from judgement. So why are some of his followers so quick to rush to judgment, especially when they do not have all the facts, instead of following the example of Jesus in extending patient grace, and in the act of church discipline, working first and foremost toward resolution and restoration, with judgement reserved only as the very last resort? That’s what the Bible says about church discipline.

  10. Joe Blackmon says:

    The by-law is perfectly consistent with Scripture. The problem here is that Broadway Baptist chooses to wink at the clear commands of scripture and not practice church discipline. The most logical reason they choose not to do this is because they do not believe homosexuality is inconsistent with Christianity. It is sad that the Executive Committee dropped the ball on this clear, cut and dried case of a church that is approving something that scripture soundly condems.

  11. Sam Swart says:

    Lee is correct, singling out one sin as the unpardonable sin, worthy of being cast out is wrongheaded. Homosexuality doesn’t even make the top ten according to my bible. If we’re going to start kicking out churches that harbor really bad sinners, let’s start with that list. Or better yet, let’s see what Christ says are the most important commandments to adhere to. Number 1, loving God. Well that’s hard to prove isn’t it? Number 2, loving our neighbor. Easier to see. And the fact that most of us fail this test regularly tells me we shouldn’t be quite so eager to claim the moral high ground.

    The SBC needs to revisit their commitment to the concept of autonomous churches. To me it means it’s up to the church, not the denomination, to determine if they want to cooperate financially. Secondly, Broadway needs to gut it up and find a better class of denominations to associate with.

  12. Lee says:

    Joe Blackmon:The by-law is perfectly consistent with Scripture.

    Lee: When one sin is singled out, in a pick and choose way as this one is, it is not consistent with scripture. Jesus didn’t elevate one sin to a position of being worse than any other. Why should the SBC bylaws do that?

    Joe Blackmon: The most logical reason they choose not to do this is because they do not believe homosexuality is inconsistent with Christianity. It is sad that the Executive Committee dropped the ball on this clear, cut and dried case of a church that is approving something that scripture soundly condems.

    Lee: Unless the church has specifically told you this, or you were there when the decision was made, you don’t know this. From what can be gathered from the facts in the news reports, the executive committee pointed out to the church where they felt the bylaw might have been violated, and the church representatives basically said that their relationship with the SBC was important enough for them to go back to the church and work toward restoration. That’s exactly what the scripture says to do. If, at a later point, there is factual evidence, not just speculation or “logical reasoning”, presented that shows Broadway is still in violation, then further action would be warranted.

  13. Ken Coffee says:

    Isn’t it amazing that we have now gotten to the point in this blogging world of deciding who is saved and who is not saved? Seems to me that is best left to the One Who does the saving to judge. If it is true, as has been alleged in this comment stream, that an official Broadway position has determined that homosexuality is not a sin, then I believe that closes the matter. They should leave the SBC. However, if the church has not decreed such a position and is merely trying to minister to sinners, that is a diferent ball game. What happens when we discipline all those who sin? If the issue is “openly”, then I suggest that people who are openly gossipping, or who are openly lying, or openly judging should also be asked to leave the church, including those who gossip through blog comments.

  14. Colby Evans says:

    Actually, Joe, from what the church representatives have said, they are more than willing to comply with the excom’s instructions. If I were “speculating,” I’d say that the interim pastor’s indication that they would go back to the church and “work through” this situation would “logically” mean that they are going to correct the errors that the excom pointed out. Obviously, since they are just representing the church, they can’t guarantee that action will be forthcoming, since that is something the church, as a body, will have to do. But what they said, on the record, was that they would go back to the church and clearly present what the excom asked them to do. Then it is up to the body to decide whether they will comply or decline to do so and then, and only then, will their position be clear.

    In reading some of the accounts of the “directory controversy” of last year, it appears that many of the church’s members were not aware of the sexual orientation of some of their members until the issue was raised. Maybe their pastor was, but he’s gone now, and a lot of their members, apparently most of those who wouldn’t have objected to including the photos of single-sex couples, are also gone. From all indications it appears that those members who are left desire to steer the church back toward a more Biblical course. At the very least, the scripture is clear that they be given the opportunity to do so.

  15. D.R. Randle says:

    Let me address a few comments.

    First, more than one of you have suggested that the SBC is singling out homosexuality and ignoring other sins. However, that obviously is not the case and this is clearly a categorical error.

    There is a difference between having sinners in one’s Church (we all have that, including ourselves), and welcoming sin by saying it’s not sin at all. The latter is the issue here. By extending membership to openly practicing and unrepentant homosexuals (even those who claim that homosexuality is not sinful and even preferrable to God) and allowing these to hold any type of leadership or worship-leading position in the Church it seems Broadway is endorsing the lifestyle and clearly not teaching in accordance with Scripture that such is wrong.

    Now we all have gossips and adulterers in our Churches, but please show me examples where these Churches have basically said to these, “your sin isn’t really a sin, so please go and engage in this activity – God even blesses it!” And that is really the crux of the matter. If, for example, what BNeill says is true (which I have no clue of, but I think the Executive Committee should seriously inquire about), then, to me, that stands as an endorsement of sin, not merely an unwillingness to deal with it.

    Secondly, “Big Daddy Weave” noted that he has “a feeling that today’s Southern Baptist orthodoxy is not generous enough to allow for openly gay and lesbian members and persons in leadership positions.”

    You are incorrect to use the term “generous.” No where is God or even Christ “generous” in terms of open sin. In fact, it would be rather “ungenerous” to allow people to continue in sin in violation of clear Scriptural teachings. That’s simply political correctness masking itself as “love,” which is really no love at all.

    Third, Lee you stated that:
    Part of the confusion here results from the fact that this particular bylaw is not consistent with scripture. By singling out this particular “sin,” the SBC is declaring that some sin is worse than other sin, which is a theological error.

    Lee, I’m not sure how you argue that from either Scripture or natural law. The OT Law doesn’t seem to agree with you here, and neither does either Christ or any of the other NT writers. No where is such a teaching explicitly taught in Scripture, nor is it even implicit. And even our own legal system testifies differently, as does our common sense (we all think of child molestors as deserving worse punishment and murderers have the worst penalties of our law code).

    Here is a great article from J.I. Packer that pretty much details the problems with your view:
    All Sins Are Not Equal
    And here another written by the famous Puritan Pastor Thomas Watson over 300 years ago:
    Degrees of Sin.

    I would further say that Scripture seems to teach that individualized sins (the majority of sins, whereby we commit singular sins) is not comparable to lifestyle sins (those that define us and consume us). I would dare say that all lifestyle sins should be confronted, but one as clear as living in a homosexual relationship simply cannot be ignored, especially if an entire Church of which I am cooperating endorses it.

    Finally, and along that point, if this church accepted into membership those they knew were struggling with homosexuality, but were clear that it was a sin and should not be engaged in. And then attempted to help these who struggled after granting membership to them, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion and we would all accept Broadway as a loving, Christ-centered congregation in our denomination. Unfortunately, that’s not the case here. This congregation seems to view a homosexual lifestyle as NOT sinful, and that is the true crux of the matter.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Wow, what a lot of comments. Let’s summarize.

    1. There is really no scriptural provision for what a denominational body should do with an affiliated church in a situation where the church may or may not have violated a bylaw. Since the Matthew 18 principle is for disputes between brothers, and the EC opted to apply it, they are within scriptural instruction in doing so.
    2. Paul describes the procedure for casting out unrepentant sinners from the church body in I Corinthians. This requires an awareness of the particular sinful acts and the unrepentant state of the individual on the part of the whole church, which was also, from the reports that have been made, not the case at Broadway.
    3. The EC gave the church instructions as to how to go about reconciling the situation in such a way as to be in compliance with the bylaws. The church representatives had no authority to make this decision without going back and consulting the church first, which they pledged to do.
    4. So up to this point, it appears that everyone has followed the clear instructions of scripture, except for those commenters who have, by gossip and innuendo, implied that Broadway is lying, or that the EC has been too lenient.

  17. D.R. Randle says:

    Sorry Anon,

    But, how exactly is suggesting that the EC was too lenient “gossip”. I think as Southern Baptists we have the right to evaluate what we should or should not do as a denomination. That’s not gossip. Discussing whether an action is right or wrong is not gossip. If that were the case, then I guess the Apostle Paul was a huge gossiper as is every preacher who expounds on the Word of God.

  18. Lee says:

    I’ve read Packer on degrees of sin. Sin is sin, and from Matt. 5:17, where Christ states his fulfillment of the law and the prophets, I would have to disagree that it comes in degrees. Christ’s blood applied covers them all.

    I do not know what Broadway’s posture has been regarding this situation, which is why I am reluctant to pass judgement. Unless the church has some kind of official inquiry when an individual joins, and asks “Are you an unrepentant homosexual?” I don’t see how you would know. If, at some later date, it became widely known, with corroborating evidence, then I would expect that the church leadership would desire full repentance and restoration rather than judgment and expulsion, and would work for a resolution. In the event of continued sin, then expulsion might be the last resort, but I think the scripture is pretty clear that handling such situations must be done in a gentle, respectful manner. I do not know for a fact that Broadway is not following this procedure, and so am not in a position to judge. Apparently, the EC got the church’s perspective and information, and made their decision based on that. They certainly know more than the rest of us do, and so I trust them to be doing the right thing.

    Even if Broadway had been found to be in complete and total violation of the bylaws, as a result of not following scriptural instruction related to this particular situation, restoration is the first option offered by scripture. It seems we have a lot of perfect people who somehow get a kick out of seeing a church booted from the elite, sinlessly perfect SBC lest their white robes and halos be contaminated by dust, but it appears Broadway is willing to do what it takes to continue their relationship with the SBC. If not, that will be their choice.

    I find myself keeping busy tending to my own spiritual matters. I don’t have a lot of time to spend looking for imperfections in other churches.

  19. D.R. Randle says:


    You said, “Sin is sin, and from Matt. 5:17, where Christ states his fulfillment of the law and the prophets, I would have to disagree that it comes in degrees. Christ’s blood applied covers them all.”

    First, the idea that Christ’s blood applied covers all sins is agreed. However, it’s a red herring to say that this means that all sin is equal. It can be equally true that all sin is covered by Christ and that some sin is worse than others. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.

    And Matthew 5:17-20 says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

    Nothing in there even remotely supports your view and then, you didn’t deal with the supporting arguments for my view. It’s fine for you to hold to your opinion, but to say that my view is “theological error” is incorrect given your lack of evidence.

    Moving on…you said, “It seems we have a lot of perfect people who somehow get a kick out of seeing a church booted from the elite, sinlessly perfect SBC lest their white robes and halos be contaminated by dust” and “I don’t have a lot of time to spend looking for imperfections in other churches.”

    Lee, you certainly know that is not the case here at all. Your rhetoric completely misses the point, even in light of Matthew 5, which you quoted. There Jesus clearly teaches that we ought not teach others to violate the Law of God, which is what may very well be happening at Broadway. According to Jesus, this is a serious offense.

    Additionally, this is not about some minor happening. People’s very souls are at jeopardy with this. If Broadway is declaring by their actions that homosexuality is not sinful, and the Bible claims that those living a lifestyle of homosexual behavior will not inherit the kingdom of God, then this matter is much more serious than it appears you are willing to admit.

    Romans 1:32 is clear, we cannot give hearty approval to people who are engaged in sinful behavior, especially those spoken of in that very passage. If Broadway is doing this, then yes, they should be called to repentance and given a chance to reconcile themselves with Scripture. There is absolutely no reason to disfellowship them if they repent and come back to the Bible on this issue. And then that would be for their good, the sanctification of their congregants, and God’s glory, and I pray that indeed would be the result.

  20. Lee says:

    The consequences of some sin is obviously worse, from a human perspective, than others, but I do not see that anything you have pointed to argues your point that some sin is worse than other sin. Sin is, from a Biblical perspective, more of a condition than it is an action. Actions result from the condition, the condition itself is that of being lost. Be that as it may, I believe the SBC is being theologically inconsistent in applying a bylaw and resulting action to one sinful act, but to no other. Christa Brown, whom I referred to in a previous article, has provided plenty of evidence to demonstrate that there are SBC churches where unrepentant sexual predators continue to serve on staff that have not been kicked out, mainly because there is neither a bylaw providing for it, nor a review panel to substantiate the accusations.

    What disturbs me most about this particular incident, however, is that so many people seem to know exactly what is going on at Broadway, and are willing to tell all they know, without providing any substantiation for their allegations. I think it would be very difficult to determine what the church’s position is on this issue without being inside it, or at the very least, privy to information they provided to the EC, which should be confidential. This should be between the church and the EC. I trust the EC to do the right, Biblically correct thing.

  21. Joe Blackmon says:

    Are there openly homosexual members at Broadway? Yes.

    Does Broadway indicate that they are working through church discipline in this matter? No.

    Those are the only facts any reasonable person needs to know to see what is a very clear open and shut case of liberal “christians” who need to be removed like the spiritual cancer they are from the SBC. The only people who don’t want them removed are those who wink at the sin of homosexuality.

  22. Lee says:

    Joe Blackmon: Does Broadway indicate that they are working through church discipline in this matter? No.

    Lee: And you know the internal operations and goings on of Broadway, how? You can verify that the church isn’t either proceeding with spiritual discipline or responsing as requested to the EC by what documentation.

    Joe Blackmon: The only people who don’t want them removed are those who wink at the sin of homosexuality.

    Lee: That is jumping to a conclusion that, unless you possess God’s omnicience, you are not qualified to make. I do not, for a second, believe that the EC of the SBC is “winking” at the sin of homosexuality, yet they have discerned from the representatives of Broadway Baptist Church a desire to do what it takes for them to remain in the SBC. I trust the EC to do the right thing.

  23. Joe Blackmon says:

    Lee: And you know the internal operations and goings on of Broadway, how? You can verify that the church isn’t either proceeding with spiritual discipline or responsing as requested to the EC by what documentation.

    If someone accused me of something that was not true, I would squeal louder than a pig at a bar-b-que. They maintain that they don’t have a problem when they clearly do. They are not declaring that “Oh yes we have started to deal with this gross immorality internally”. That’s all the proof a reasonable person needs.

  24. Colby Evans says:

    In other words, Joe, you don’t really have anything to back up what you say except some really overused Southern colloquialism.

    Lee, I am not sure that I trust the EC of the SBC to do the right thing. They do not exactly have a great track record in that regard.

  25. Robert says:


    The relationship being considered is under the control of the EC so that is a moot point.

    Joe B.

    my experience is the loudest squealer is the guiltiest schemer and cover up artist. My guess is that it comes from a fear of being caught rather than a confidence in the facts.


    thanks for your clear eyes as an unconnected third party, but drives at the need for more equanimity if the standards are to be true and calls for correction as agreed, if necessary. Keep up the good writing.

  26. Joe Blackmon says:


    So if you were accused of doing something that you didn’t do you would remain silent about it? Wow, that’s weird. Yes, there are guilty people who profess their innocence. However, there are very, very few innocent people who would keep silent when accused. Again, their silence is proof enough for any reasonable person to draw the conclusion that homosexuality isn’t a problem to this church.

  27. Colby Evans says:

    I find it interesting that someone who lives in Tennessee has an insider view of exactly what Broadway Baptist Church in Ft. Worth is doing, or not doing, and is capable of telling the EC of the SBC what they ought to do.

  28. Joe Blackmon says:

    I find it interesting that people who claim to be Christians appove of people living in any habitual sin. Any reasonable person who looked at what Broadway has said and what they have NOT said would come to the same conclusion.

  29. Colby Evans says:

    You are grasping at straws here. The EC of the SBC is not approving of people living in habitual sin by allowing Broadway the benefit of the doubt, and offering them a means of continuing their relationship with the SBC. You do not know what is going on inside Broadway, you are reading way too much into the few remarks that they and the EC have released, and that is plainly not enough to rush to judgement. It could well be that, as a body, they decide that they are not willing to follow the process outlined by the EC, and at that point, the EC would be correct to disfellowship them. But until they get to that point, God is the only one who knows the hearts and minds, and is in a position to judge. You are not.

  30. Lee says:

    Sorry, I was in New Orleans for a couple of days and checked my email, but not my blog.

    I have no doubt that the EC of the SBC is not “being lenient” or “going soft” on Broadway, and I seriously doubt that they are “winking” at habitual sin. If they thought there was any compromise involved at all, they would have dismissed Broadway from the SBC, end of story. Obviously they sense that the church, or at least its representatives, were sincere in their desire to remain in the convention, or they would have booted them and went on about their business.

  31. Robert says:

    Je B

    I did not say that the quietest accused was usually the most innocent but the Herod did seem rather frustrated with someone we all hold dear.

  32. Paula says:

    Hey there, Lee and friends!

    We SBC brothers and sisters wink at other sins. Joe, how many times have you been to a down-home Southern Baptist potluck and seen other brothers and sisters(perhaps even yourself) pig out on unhealthy foods and a plate that needs sideboards? In my Bible that is called gluttony. That is just one of the the sins I can think we wink at. I am sure there are others that I didn’t think of off the top of my head. I admit I have sin in my life every day. How can I cast the first stone? Being judgemental, Bro. Joe, is sin! You might ought to be careful of the 2×4 in your own eye.
    When are we going to do the Jesus thing and minister to people where they are?