Comments on: Another Baptist church not anti-gay enough for Texas

By: MS

MS — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:32:25 +0000

There are certain things I just don’t get. Why, why, why would a gay person ever even WANT to be belong to a Baptist church? Along the same lines, why would a woman want to be Catholic priest, given the RCC’s appalling misogyny for 2 millennia? It’s almost as puzzling to me as, say, a black person wanting to join a white supremacist group. I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point…

By: ebohlman

ebohlman — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:04:33 +0000

customartist: The civil rights laws involving religious discrimination have exemptions for employees of religious organizations whose positions are religious in nature (i.e. don’t have secular counterparts in private industry or government). So the BGCT is probably free to put church-affiliation requirements on employees who are involved in, say, running mission-related work, whereas they wouldn’t be allowed to impose such requirements on, say, a pension-fund manager.

By: ironflange

ironflange — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:58:05 +0000

Judge not, lest you yourself be judged.

By: customartist

customartist — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:03:21 +0000

2 Issues:

1.) Hopefully the Royal Lane Baptist Church will stand firm on their beliefs of equality, although they are surely under heavy pressure, setting a *New Standard* in a *New Age* of inclusiveness, under God, for all. Godspeed!

2.) A charge of “Religious Discrimination” would be the Correct Legal Course of Action for any Paid Employee who should find themselves being suddenly discharged, pressured, or harrassed in any way by The Baptist General Convention of Texas.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:57:55 +0000

Heck, if homophobic Episcopalians can affiliate with AFRICAN Anglican organizations, surely this church can affiliate with an American Baptist organization that is more liberal.

By: Gunnertec

Gunnertec — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:38:32 +0000

As a member, I can tell you two things:

a) It will likely be the last paragraph that changes.

b) I don’t think many people care about affiliations any longer. We’ve always had a “come and see” attitude towards potential guests and visitors who ask a lot of probing questions about what we believe. I think it’s important to simply be apart of the community before judging it.

By: DaveM

DaveM — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:54:38 +0000

Richard’s point is important to remember. Not all Baptists are part of the Southern Baptist Convention – and although the GBCT does still consider homosexual acts sin, they specifically rejected the SBC’s rewriting (in 2000) of its fundamental codes.
The CBF’ll still keep Royal Lane, and they probably can find a reaffiliation with the American Baptists (stronger in the northeast) or a similar denomination.

By: Richard W. Fitch

Richard W. Fitch — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:54:00 +0000

I’m sure there are other large, national Baptist denominations that will joyfully accept Royal Lane into their fellowship. For those that must choose between work place and worship place, I pray they will deeply search their souls and consciences. Perhaps “Texas Baptist values” need some rethinking.

By: Soren456

Soren456 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:25:51 +0000

I just don’t know.

I want to laugh, as usual. Christianity is the great he-said/she-said religion. Members point fingers at members, back and forth, claiming truth here. . . there . . . everywhere.

What a f***ing joke. I just want to sneer at it, make fun of it, ignore it.

Yet I have to admit that these fool quarrels, too, because they do matter to so many, have a role in cementing our ultimate freedom to be left alone.

So, more power to you, Royal Lane. Boo-yah!