Should an Evangelical Theological Society admit members who affirm gay marriage?

There are 10 Comments

Rob Fall's picture

no.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Bert Perry's picture

It looks like the ETS is coming close to crossing the Rubicon between legitimate questions and "roll your own reality".  It strikes me that if the names of the "nay" votes are known, the churches, seminaries, and the like for which they work might be very interested to know.  Or at least I hope they would be!

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Darrell Post's picture

One can see the direction this issue appears to be going. Its an article like this that reminds me why I am a historic fundamentalist and not an evangelical.

WallyMorris's picture

that this thread concerning the serious problem of homosexual acceptance in ETS has received very little comment, but the thread about drinking wine has received many comments. Are we sure our priorities are correct? Are people so concerned about their "right" to drink wine that more important issues get little attention, especially since Fundamentalist schools which used to avoid ETS are now slowly accepting faculty involvement in ETS?

Wally Morris

Charity Baptist Church

Huntington, IN

amomentofcharity.blogspot.com

TylerR's picture

Editor

I am really not sure what the value of ETS is, beyond an opportunity to network and advance your academic career. I fully understand that it's an important part of academia, etc. etc. Yet, I basically believe it's irrelevant. More to the point, I don't think God is pleased or glorified with some of what goes on at ETS. 

Christians who have been gifted with extraordinary minds and deep intellectual ability were so gifted in order to serve the Lord through His church. It is difficult to see how that end is achieved by active participation in an organization which is unwilling to condemn open theism or unrepentant homosexuality. 

Having said all that, I suspect the reason for the lack of attention on this issue at SI is because few people here really care much about ETS or what they do.

ETS, through it's journal, does provide a platform for some interesting articles. But, I wonder if that's really enough to make the connection worthwhile.

Wally, thanks for the link to your articles about ETS. I remember reading that series a while back, but I'll go back and take another look now. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Jim's picture

WallyMorris wrote:

that this thread concerning the serious problem of homosexual acceptance in ETS has received very little comment, but the thread about drinking wine has received many comments. Are we sure our priorities are correct? Are people so concerned about their "right" to drink wine that more important issues get little attention, especially since Fundamentalist schools which used to avoid ETS are now slowly accepting faculty involvement in ETS?

B I N G O !

Bert Perry's picture

WallyMorris wrote:

that this thread concerning the serious problem of homosexual acceptance in ETS has received very little comment, but the thread about drinking wine has received many comments. Are we sure our priorities are correct? Are people so concerned about their "right" to drink wine that more important issues get little attention, especially since Fundamentalist schools which used to avoid ETS are now slowly accepting faculty involvement in ETS?

No argument that this is bigger, but quite frankly, since the prohibitionist movement really got going only in the late 18th century, many would also phrase this "Are we sure our priorities are correct?  Are people so concerned about whether brothers and sisters in Christ drink wine that more important issues get little attention?"  Really, when people press for their "right to drink wine", as you say it, that implies simultaneously a group militating that believers did not have that right.  (or any number of other hot button issues in fundagelicalism, really)  Let's not blame one side alone here, especially the side that didn't pick the fight in the first place.

Really, what exists is exactly what should; an argument that would limit the liberty of believers in their own personal lives is going to be more hotly debated than one which doesn't affect many of us.  Don't you think?

And really, it's a debate over the same thing; are believers bound to the plain meaning of the Scriptures?  Is John 2 correctly translated, or is it not?  Are Genesis 2 and Leviticus 18 correctly translated, or not?  If they are correctly translated, are they applicable to our lives?  Really, the doctrines at hand are the perspicuity of Scripture and Sola Scriptura itself.  Can't get much bigger than that.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

G. N. Barkman's picture

Are some SI readers more concerned about the need to prohibit legitimate and moderate use of alcohol than they are about gay marriage?  (Spoken by one who is himself a total abstainer, but refuses to mandate what the Bible does not forbid.)

G. N. Barkman

David R. Brumbelow's picture

One reason for fewer comments at this post is that no one here is arguing for same sex marriage,

some here (at another post) are arguing for the recreational use of a mind altering drug. 

David R. Brumbelow