Editorial

I re-read the headline three times before I realized the Baptist Press story actually said what I believed at first must have been an error. The Atlanta Baptist Association voted decisively Jan. 30 to affirm two homosexual-friendly congregations.

Last week, the Witness reported on the association’s action and reactions from various dissenting churches. Additionally, we covered responses from the Georgia Baptist Convention and North American Mission Board, both of which now are in the process of removing funding from the association because of the affirmation of homosexuality.

Oakhurst Baptist Church in Decatur, Ga., and Virginia-Highland Baptist Church in Atlanta were removed from membership of the Georgia Baptist Convention in 1999 because both permit homosexuals to hold membership and leadership positions within the congregations. In contrast, the Atlanta Association voted to retain the churches in its fellowship after a lengthy period of dialogue.

Although the association claims not to "support or condone homosexual activity" but "affirms the longstanding Baptist polity of local church autonomy," this vote was about the truth of Scripture and whether the Atlanta Baptist Association will submit to that truth. Tragically, the association seems to value more highly a distorted understanding of autonomy than it does the clear mandate of Scripture.

The rationale of the Atlanta Baptist Association’s action is wrong. The Baptist principle of local church autonomy most certainly does not require the affirmation of homosexual-friendly churches, and neither does the Bible.

The guise of autonomy, under which much aberrant teaching is now being covered, must be removed in order to reassert the true historic Baptist principle. It would be a tremendous surprise to our Baptist forefathers to learn that their advocacy of local church autonomy would one day be used to protect the sinful practice of homosexuality in Baptist churches.

That every Baptist congregation is autonomous is absolutely true. Indeed, this is a core principle of Baptist life. Nevertheless, it is also true that every other Baptist body is also autonomous and, therefore, free to determine the qualifications of its membership.

Many witnesses from the past may be brought forward to demonstrate this point with abundant clarity. In the interest of brevity, I cite only one.

In 1774, the Charleston (S.C.) Baptist Association published its principles for membership. And, while the association is quite clear that each church is autonomous and that the association holds no "coercive power or authority over the churches," it is also clear about the association’s rights and duties.

"Nevertheless, the association has a natural and unalienable right to judge for itself what churches shall be admitted into confederacy with it, and to withdraw from all acts of communion and fellowship with any church, so admitted, provided such church should obstinately persist in holding corrupt principles, or indulging vicious practices, notwithstanding all proper endeavors have been used to reclaim it."

This matter is really very simple. It is no more reasonable to expect Baptist associations (local, state or national) to accept into their membership churches that endorse sprinkling as a proper mode of baptism than it is that they would accept churches that violate biblical teaching on sexual morality.

The very fact that Oakhurst and Virginia-Highland have continued in their endorsement of homosexuality in spite of the sanction of the GBC demonstrates that their autonomy has not been violated. Further, the churches have made clear their intention to continue their unbiblical ways no matter what the Atlanta Association does.

The shockwaves of the association’s action are still reverberating throughout Southern Baptist life. Many have noted the historical significance of the vote—the first time a Southern Baptist body (other than a few random churches) has affirmed homosexuality. The culture war, it seems, is now raging within our own house.

Romans 1, I submit, speaks to the Atlanta Association. Paul warns that there are times when God gives over those who "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Homosexuality is one example he cites in the passage, ending the chapter by noting that although the ordinance of God is known, some even "give hearty approval to those" who practice ungodliness.

Is this where the Atlanta Baptist Association now finds itself? We should pray they would reverse their course and return to the historic Baptist principle of autonomy and biblical truth.