Before I even begin this blog/letter, please let me state
that it is with a burdened heart and a great deal of thought and prayer. I want to state openly and before anything
else, that I am sending a copy of this letter to both men involved and am, of
course taking personal responsibility over what I am saying in this blog. I do not believe that we have a right biblically, to handle things in an open forum when the Bible calls us to go to
someone directly and, I do not believe we should be so cowardly as to post
“anonymously” – but I will say that I have chosen to post this blog, rather
than just send the letter, because both men have made their stands and beliefs in
a very open and “public” manner, and I believe it should be called into
question in an equally open manner to address the concerns. I am
not perfect, and do not claim to be. I
am infinitely fallible and capable of any sin known to man – including my
heart’s desperate desire for peace and longing to avoid conflict – a sin I
battle in my ministry often. I write
this letter and blog, not with the wisdom and knowledge of an expert, but as
someone who has walked and lived in a ministry that has required me to stand on
biblical truth many times and battle my desire for peace as I seek to glorify
God in conflict. There is a time to stand
– even if it creates conflict, because it is RIGHT and BIBLICAL to do so.
It should also be noted that the church, First Baptist
Church of Crystal Springs and Pastor Stan Weatherford, issued a public apology
this past Sunday for the actions that have occurred. While the apology stated that they were sorry
for “the hurt that was brought” to the couple, and that they recognized that
the church is made up of people who “intentionally, at times, choose not to
follow the Lord’s will”…this apology still falls short in dealing with one
specific area – will our response to sinfulness be active and taking
responsibility, or be passive and compromising in trying to avoid conflict at
all costs. I am so thankful that the
Church and the local community are facing this issue and dealing with the harm
it has caused in a positive manner, but I hate to think that a valuable lesson
in manhood is going to be overlooked in the attempt to make peace.
A Request for Mississippi Baptist Leadership to Evaluate the
Definition of Manhood:
One of the most enjoyable things that I do as a Pastor is on
Thursday mornings when I have the opportunity to lead Men's Fraternity. One of
the first things we went through in this men’s Bible Study, was the definition
of manhood. This definition was so good, I put it on the wall in our boys
playroom (actually as teens, they now call it the “man-cave”). But the definition
is: “A man rejects passivity, accepts responsibility,
leads courageously and expects the greater reward…God's reward.” My thoughts
ran to this definition this week as I pondered the tragic decision that was
made by the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, MS. to not allow an
African American couple to have a wedding ceremony in their facility. However,
I must confess after further reading and studying the matter, my concern for
the church abated some as I saw multiple reports that this was a minority of
the congregation that seems to have worked behind the scenes to disrupt such a
Christ honoring event as a wedding ceremony. I have personally watched a small
militant and divisive group cause great harm in churches working in cowardly,
behind the scenes manner. However, as a believer (especially in Mississippi), I
believe we cannot “gloss over” this issue and simply let it go: there is more
going on than just a wedding here.
After much prayer and examination of this issue, and going based on just
what these men have stated publicly, about their own beliefs and reasons, I
believe responsibility falls to two brothers in Christ who I hope will consider
the definition above. I believe these two brothers had a responsibility to act
and react in a biblical manner regarding overt sinfulness; it is to these two
brothers that I feel we, as believers, should respond as they have made their
decisions publically:
The
first is to Pastor Stan Weatherford, who I am sure had no desire for the type
of press he has received. I fully understand the difficulties of being a
Pastor, and I have experienced first-hand, having to make tough decisions that
I knew could most certainly endanger my job and may cause difficulty for our
church in the short-run. I know the turmoil that this can bring to a family and
I can imagine the pressure he must have felt in attempting to lead First
Baptist Crystal Springs through this crossroads. However, this decision to acquiesce
to the bigoted minority, or even a majority, and simply move the wedding away
from the church, is to bow down to a complete compromise of the Gospel. If we
hold to Scripture as being inerrant and we do, then we believe that marriage is
not simply a gift from God to us as people, but we believe that marriage is a
living, breathing illustration of the relationship between Christ and His
Church. He is the creator and definer of marriage, not us, because He set it
up. Therefore, marriage is a picture of the Gospel – of Christ redeeming His
imperfect bride and making her without blemish for His glory. We are His simply because He chose us to be
for His glory and through His work of grace alone…we are a bride that is
undeserving and in need of His grace. And
this same grace that is shown to us through the picture of marriage is the same
grace that goes out to any race, any color and any nationality. For Pastor Stan to bow to a "vocal
minority" (his words) is not pastoral move, but a move of passivity to
protect his job and, I believe also to keep his church from conflict. However, this picture of the Gospel is too
valuable and too important to make light of to simply avoid conflict.
I find
it strange that we had untold thousands support Chick-Fil-A for their biblical
stance on marriage, and are “up in arms” about the issue of homosexuals having
a "kiss in" at some Chick-fil-A's - but we have not heard alarm for
this bigoted decision allowed by this Pastor and this Church (even in
Mississippi!). My guess is the greater damage could be done from Pastor
Weatherford's decision on allowing racial prejudice to dictate a church
decision, than from a stance on homosexuality. While I wholeheartedly
agree in the biblical definition of marriage, I think the point is moot if I
don't have a biblical understanding of how that marriage illustrates the church
and Gospel. The church is a local group of believers that are joined to
together and united first and foremost, through the grace of Christ found
through the cross (there is much more regarding doctrine accountability but
this shortened definition will do for this). The point is that what unifies us
is the grace of God, not our favorite football teams, nor our skin color or
country of origin. To be silent or to compromise on an issue as crucial to the
Gospel as bigotry, is to miss our calling completely. By allowing bigoted
thinking to keep two individuals from celebrating this covenant of marriage before
God in the fellowship of believers, is to mar the picture of the Gospel going
forth to all nations.
Now, for the individual who had an opportunity to clearly
speak for Mississippi Baptists and give a uncompromising definition of marriage
and how it relates to the Gospel; Dr. Jim Futral. When given this opportunity
to speak with grace and boldness, here is his quote: "Mississippi Baptists
both reject racial discrimination and at the same time respect the autonomy of
our local churches to deal with difficulties and disagreements under the
lordship of Jesus." Well, obviously there is a misunderstanding of
Lordship here. Christ is my Lord, therefore I can't hate someone for their skin
color, for their nationality or for any other reason, because He is Lord - He
forbids it; and, as a believer when I do something Christ forbids, I must
repent. I certainly believe if Pastor Weatherford made the decision to have
homosexuals marry in First Baptist Crystal Springs that Dr. Futral would come
out stronger than he did on this issue. I believe we make such an issue over
homosexuality because we are more confident that we are not dealing with that
in our own lives – it is an open, defining sin that the Bible calls sin
(meaning you either are, or are not a homosexual)…but racial prejudice,
well…we like to believe that is a little more “murky” and of course is not
nearly as critical, right? Even our
Baptist Faith and Message sets the two side by side when it says in section XV:
"All Christians are under obligation to
seek and make the will of Christ
supreme in our own lives and in human
society. Means and methods
used for the improvement of society and the
establishment of
righteousness among men can be truly and
permanently helpful only when
they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace
of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of
Christ, Christians should oppose
racism, every form of greed...all forms of
sexual immorality, including
adultery, homosexuality and
pornography."
Now, if Dr. Futral heard of a church allowing homosexuality
or showing pornography on couple’s retreats, I imagine he would not simply say:
"We stand against all forms of sin, but it is a matter of church autonomy
on homosexuality." No, if he did, his job would be on the line. But amazingly
we are passive, with such tepid responses when dealing with open bigotry and
racial prejudice. I am not attacking Dr.
Futral or Pastor Weatherford as we have all made decisions we wish we would
have done differently, but a clear attack on the Gospel in this fashion demands
a stronger response. Dr. Futral had no
problem stepping out and being one of few Executive Directors to sign his name
on the controversial and potentially divisive "A Statement of the
Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation."
This document caused a great deal of turmoil with brothers on both sides
working in missions together; brothers that get the Gospel right. Dr. Futral
made an amazingly strong stand on that issue with such potential divisiveness
across the convention, yet such a weak response on this issue. Given our State’s history in bigotry and
prejudice, and what a disturbing misrepresentation of the Gospel this example
of bigotry was, why not a stronger response here? Why choose to take such a
weak stand on this issue? To avoid
conflict in your own “backyard”? Or was
it because it was not a group signing a document, but only one man being asked
to respond and take a stand in the face of obvious sinfulness.
In conclusion, this negative situation was an opportunity
for First Baptist Crystal Springs, Dr. Weatherford and Dr. Futral to call for
repentance and stand for the Gospel. It was as simple as "rejecting
passivity" and when that isn't done, one can never accept responsibility.
Here is an opportunity for God to use this situation to display His glory
through His people holding to truth. Let's do so in one accord and pray that in
coming days we all more aggressive in doing right.
