Evangelicals Fear LGBT Blessings Proposal Would Split the Church of England

If Evangelicals understood separation, they would have left the Church of England many years ago. Attempts to “purify” are obviously failing. One of James Packer’s faults is that he didn’t understand/accept Biblical separation. Lloyd-Jones was right after all.

I truly wonder how many same sex marriages are being done in churches that have now sanctioned that as their practice. Most LGBTQ+ are not religious according to polls (potentially 20%). I am guessing fewer than that are getting married and even fewer are looking at a church to be married in. Churches are splitting over their desire to be seen as promoting equality than what might even be a practical consideration.

My church (FBCJAX) is taking a pretty extreme stance, making all members sign a statement of faith around marriage and gender, or loose your membership. It is the first “megachurch” to be doing this and they are catching a lot of flak. I would encourage you to watch their “open mic” night with the community where they invited concerned members of the community to come and ask questions around the new statement.

[dgszweda]

My church (FBCJAX) is taking a pretty extreme stance, making all members sign a statement of faith around marriage and gender, or loose your membership. It is the first “megachurch” to be doing this and they are catching a lot of flak. I would encourage you to watch their “open mic” night with the community where they invited concerned members of the community to come and ask questions around the new statement.

I watched the open mic last week. I thought Heath handled it pretty well. Churches Church members will be increasingly targeted by the LGBTQI+ community. They may not be able to stop a church from taking these positions, but if you are a member of such a church and you are a public figure (or business leader), you’ll be targeted and your livelihood will be threatened. Think about Chip and Joanna Gains and the flak they received because of the church they attended.

A couple years back, my employer (a publicly-traded company) announced its DE&I initiatives and made it clear that employees could be fired for statements, actions, or affiliations that were deemed offensive to our customers, associates, or community.

[T Howard]

I watched the open mic last week. I thought Heath handled it pretty well.

I believe that the statement is worded pretty well an din such a way that it doesn’t mention anything against a particular group. Will that stop all problems? Probably not. The problem is that these statements and approach are going to be increasingly important, because without them you will have a hard time protecting the church from any activism. It is a very challenging place to be today.

[dgszweda]

My church (FBCJAX) is taking a pretty extreme stance, making all members sign a statement of faith around marriage and gender, or loose your membership. It is the first “megachurch” to be doing this and they are catching a lot of flak. I would encourage you to watch their “open mic” night with the community where they invited concerned members of the community to come and ask questions around the new statement.

I haven’t watched the open mic yet, but does seem to be an extreme stance. What is the rationale for singling this issue out? It seems like there could be plenty of other sins added to the list if a church goes down that path.

[dgszweda] I would encourage you to watch their “open mic” night with the community where they invited concerned members of the community to come and ask questions around the new statement.

[AndyE]

If your constitution and statement of faith includes language like this statement on sexuality, and you require people to affirm your constitution/SoF as a requirement of membership, then do you need to sign a separate statement?

I can’t speak for dgszweda’s church, but constitutions and SoFs are often fairly large and comprehensive. At my current church, we do not require members to sign that they agree with/hold every point in that Statement of Faith. We do bind them to the (much shorter and more general) church covenant, and they do agree that the official doctrinal position of the church is the SoF. Further, they agree that no doctrine can or will be taught in the church contrary to the SoF, and that church actions, including discipline, will be based on the constitution/SoF. Frankly, we didn’t want people worried about whether they could join if there was one point of doctrine they didn’t quite agree with (e.g. if we weren’t Calvinistic enough, or were too much so, etc.), but that we wanted to be clear on the church’s position and what it will do/allow, etc.

Each church will be different, but we thought that was the best reasonable compromise between having both an official church position and recognizing soul liberty.

The other thing is that different times will require focus on different issues that may not have been forefront in the past, and changes are made in the church documents. Sometimes SoFs contain issues that are not longer relevant, and no longer require a specific clause, and sometimes new issues arise (like the crazy speed with which gender issues have arisen in our day) that were not something previous generations even argued over, but now require special statements.

[AndyE]

dgszweda wrote:I would encourage you to watch their “open mic” night with the community where they invited concerned members of the community to come and ask questions around the new statement.

Open mics….always makes me think of James 3:1. On the other hand, it certainly lets you know how people are thinking. If your constitution and statement of faith includes language like this statement on sexuality, and you require people to affirm your constitution/SoF as a requirement of membership, then do you need to sign a separate statement?

We request people to affirm our constitution. I think the concern is, especially in a large church of 3,000 to 5,000 members is that you risk activist getting into membership and then creating a legal nightmare for a church. There is an aspect of including this to beef up the constitution given current issues, but I think there is a legal aspect as well.

[dcbii]

Frankly, we didn’t want people worried about whether they could join if there was one point of doctrine they didn’t quite agree with (e.g. if we weren’t Calvinistic enough, or were too much so, etc.), but that we wanted to be clear on the church’s position and what it will do/allow, etc.

That’s a huge spread. Is “membership” so vague that the church doesn’t have an exact number?

[AndyE]

Does your church covenant spell out the fundamentals of the faith or any core doctrines?

Not directly, but as part of the covenant, each believer agrees to “sustain its [the church’s] worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines.” In addition, the membership agreement includes the following about eligibility:

To be eligible for membership in this church, a person must

• Profess faith in Christ as Savior and Lord, give evidence of regeneration, have been baptized by immersion in obedience to Christ following regeneration, and wholeheartedly believe in the Christian faith as revealed in the Bible.
• Agree to submit to the teaching of Scripture as expressed in the Statement of Faith.
• Promise to keep the commitments expressed in the Church Covenant, and abide by the Constitution and by-laws of the church.

Now, could someone weasel their way around actually believing in the fundamentals of the faith given the language above? I guess it’s possible, but it would either become obvious in the way their walk and Christian life proceeds such that they would need counseling and possibly discipline, OR If they are that good at hiding their true beliefs and faking true Christian belief, they would be a “tare” that is not for us to remove, but will be taken care of at judgment time.

[G. N. Barkman]

That’s a huge spread. Is “membership” so vague that the church doesn’t have an exact number?

No, but I don’t know the exact number. We have two campuses that are also stand alone congregations, but under one umbrella, so I am not clear when they give numbers.

Thanks for the clarification!