How The Southern Baptist Convention Tip Toed Around Homosexuality In It’s Cruel Response To The Orlando Shooting | ThinkProgress


It just so happens that this week, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is holding its Annual Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri.

As a congregationalist denomination, the annual meeting consists of thousands of “messengers” from the Convention’s autonomous churches who gather to discuss the future of the SBC.

On Tuesday, their first order of business was to respond to the Orlando shooting.The proposed resolution, Resolution 1, refers to the “tragic deaths of at least fifty” and calls upon messengers to pray, extend love and compassion to those devastated by the tragedy, donate blood, and “regard those affected by this tragedy as fellow image-bearers of God and our neighbors.”

The resolution outlining response procedures and dialogue  is noticeably missing any reference to the fact that the victims were gay.

That could be because no church can participate in the Convention if it does not have a faith and practice that “closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith,” which condemns homosexuality.

In fact, the SBC Constitution specifically cites that belief as an example: “Churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.”

More @: The Southern Baptist Convention’s Cruel Response To The Orlando Shooting | ThinkProgress

Author: Geo Gee

I'm a curious one that finds politics, social issues, and diverse progressive solutions interesting. I believe information and education are the most powerful weapons one can arm himself with. Those two dynamics alone open the doors to opportunities. I also subscribe to each one teach one for a better world for all.

4 thoughts on “How The Southern Baptist Convention Tip Toed Around Homosexuality In It’s Cruel Response To The Orlando Shooting | ThinkProgress”

  1. It seems that the SBC did something positive, despite their beliefs. Additionally, I thought that “labeling” was an undesirable action. It seems the SBC avoided labeling in this case. Is it possible that they did so, without malice?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah Ron that is possible and it’s a possibility I don’t a lot of people have considered. Me personally, I don’t think they were calloused or mean spirited toward the incident – I do believe they were in a quandary when having to stay within the bounds of the SBC Constitution. I think too at the time of their statement authorities had not totally confirmed the shooter had a hatred for certain members of the LBGT community – so they also could have been hesitant about tagging something that hadn’t been confirmed. Anyway – good point my brother. Always nice to chop up dialogue with you.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s