Table Of Content

THEO. Ah AND TRAGEDY f AFEST CHURCH ,fl L. THE ORDEAL AND TRAGEDY OF BWKLEY BAPTIST CHURCH By JohnL. Humber Chapel Hill NC , 1992 . This review is an attempt to understand what happened to The Olin T. Binkley Memorial Baptist Church during the past year, and is lovingly dedicated to all its members who have lived through this experience 11 9-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE ORDEAL OF BINKLEY CHURCH 1983 - 1990 7 1991 8 Senior Minister's First Year Congregational Evaluation 8 Blevins Requests Licensure 9 The Diaconate Begins Dealing With The Issue 9 Opposing Points OfView 1 The Diaconate Begins the Process 13 The Educational Process Proposed 15 "The Process" Begins 16 1992 17 The Diaconate Votes 24 Plans To Actively Involve The Membership Are Now Made 24 Polarity ofBeliefs and Views Unreconciled 26 The Kelley Letter And Warning 30 The Process For The Congregation 32 The Canslers' Open Letter 37 The Council Plans Continue 38 Diaconate Summary Statement On Opposing Views 39 Congregational Discussions Begin 41 Tuesday Night Meeting March 24th 48 , Thursday Night Meeting March 26th 48 , Sunday Night Meeting March 29th 49 , Church Conference April 5th 50 , Reactions After The April 5th Vote 56 John Blevins' Interview With The Chapel Hill Herald 59 Attempts To Recover The Church 60 THE TRAGEDY OF BINKLEY BAPTIST CHURCH The Homosexuality Issue 65 Science vs The Scriptures 66 . The Concept of Ordination 67 Politics And Leadership 69 (.rt .25 in)Failure To Deal With Members' Perceptions 70 (.rt .25 inJSelective Leadership 7 (.rt .25 in>Full Resident Membership Involvement 73 Politics And The Church 73 The Expanding Rift 75 Binkley's Experience As Instructive To Others? 77 Appendix 79 Digitized by the Internet Archive 2013 in http://archive.org/details/ordealtragedyofbOOhumb . . . . ,. INTRODUCTION During 1991 and 1992 the Olin T. Binkley Memorial Baptist Church in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, was guided through what became a highly divisive and rending experience On the surface it would seem that the issue of homosexuality was the . question over which differing opinions created the rift that caused many members to leave. The request for licensure to preach by John Blevins, an openly gay, sexually active ministerial student at Duke University who joined Binkley Church in December 1990, was the focal point of that issue and the events which followed. However, when one reviews what was said and done during the past year, it becomes abundantly clear that John Blevins and the issue of homosexuality were only the catalyst which brought to the fore a number of other divisive issues In the first section that follows is an historical chronology summarizing those events that occurred within Binkley Baptist Church primarily during 1991 and 1992 dealing with the issue of homosexuality as well as other divisive issues, such as Biblical interpretation, ordination, local church autonomy, and political processes within the church This survey was assembled from Binkley church records and from position . statements and letters provided by members expressing their views on the issues and the process over the period An attempt was made to identify the major actions taken by all . sides in the controversy, providing a synopsis of those views expressed for and against the issues as well as the process used to pursue the main question No attempt was made . to summarize any literature on the subject from sources outside of the church whether , or not provided by the leadership or members And secondly, a subjective analysis has been placed at the end of this survey, for it is my view that there exists a serious misconception in the minds of many members as well as the general public as to what actually occurred at Binkley over the past year This analysis is my own evaluation of how and why my Church has been effectively destroyed for me, and, evidently, for a sizable group of other members as well who have either left or are simply fading away. For it now embraces various policies, initiatives and loyalties which are viewed as simply unacceptable Perhaps this assessment will help other members as it has me to understand more clearly what they have felt and thought during this very painful experience Perhaps . some lessons taken from our failure as a congregation at Binkley as a community of , faith, may help other congregations and their members elsewhere to face similar challenges more successfully when the need arises . . . THE ORDEAL OF BINKLEY CHURCH 1983 - 1990 The subject of homosexuality was never an issue at Binkley Baptist Church which , over the decades accepted anyone into its membership who professed belief in Jesus Christ, regardless of the method by which they were baptized. During the recent controversy one Binkley deacon wrote in a letter to the editor of the Chapel HillHerald (March 19, 1992) that the church ". .has deliberately been inclusive of homosexuals in . its membership. ." He revealed in this statement a limited understanding of what . Binkley has stood for during these past thirty four years. In 1983 Robert Seymour preached a sermon sharing what in his view were interpretive fallacies surrounding the Biblical passages used for not openly accepting homosexual persons pointing out some , new scientific thinking about the origins of homosexuality. With this exception, Binkley Church has never made an issue of homosexuality and never called attention to its homosexual members, respecting the privacy they had chosen for themselves. What Binkley Baptist Church has stood for is the deliberate inclusiveness of all Christians who wished to worship there or felt led to join its membership, regardless of the method of Baptism they had experienced or the path which had lead them on their journey of faith to this particular congregation of believers The first time the issue of homosexuality arose in a public discussion among the general membership of Binkley Church was when the present Senior Minister Linda E , Jordan, wrote a statement to the church about herself to assist the membership in considering her being called to the pulpit at Binkley. In this statement, in a section captioned "A Single Experience", she indicated that after several opportunities for marriage and following a marriage annulment twenty years earlier, it was her deliberate choice to live as a single person, citing as a reason self-protection from a painful marital conflict in the midst of which she grew up In this statement she said: . Ifeel veryfortunate that I have formed a healthy and significant friendship which allowed me to share my home with anotherperson Emilie In living with , . her Ihave been able to overcome some ofmy selfishness and to develop a more , positive attitude toward conflict and closeness With the death ofEmilie's sister . and our decision to assume responsibilityforEmilie's niece Melissa Iinherited , , aparenting role which was extremely difficultfor me but which hasproven to be valuable Therefore althoughIam single Ihave had the benefit ofstable and . , , loving relationships which have nurtured my self-development immensely It is important to me personally that I not be viewed as unfulfilled or less complete because I am single / consider myselfto be whole and wholesome / . . enjoy close friendships with both male and femalepersons and challenge the labels that most singlepersons confront continually. It is important to meprofessionally thatInot be expected to be thepastor and her wife [spouse]. Moreover, it is important that my compensation, living space and . . . . personal time be valued and respected in the same manner as that ofa married person . This statement raised a question in the minds ofa number of members as to whether Dr. Jordan was homosexual, herself. That question was publicly asked by a member at the Church Conference on March 25, 1990, which was scheduled to decide whether or not to call her as Senior Minister A woman member of the congregation stood and said . that Dr Jordan had been asked point blank by the Binkley Morning Women's Group: . "Are you gay?"; and, according to this member, Dr. Jordan denied that she was, this answer being accepted by the Women's Group. This answer, apparently, also satisfied the members of the church present at the Church Conference, for the issue was not raised again The method chosen by the Church Council and announced by Joe Clontz Chair of , , the Pulpit Committee, by which to issue the call was to have Jordan visit in the community for a week preach on Sunday meet members at a church conference that , , night to answer questions, and then wait in another room while the church deliberated and voted on whether to call her as Senior Minister After two years of time spent by . the Pulpit Committee seeking a candidate to present to the Church, it was never adequately answered why a process was established to have the congregation rush to a decision on the same day when many members met the candidate for the first time No . one was given time to go home, talk with friends whose judgment they respected and come to a decision. And, the atmosphere among a large segment of the congregation was one of embarrassment at having to decide with the candidate waiting in the wings The call was made with only about 16 dissenting votes, and Dr, Jordan moved to Chapel Hill a month or so later 1991 This year witnessed the beginnings of growing dissatisfaction among some Binkley members with the general direction in which their Church was being led and the priorities which were being emphasized by its leadership Senior Minister's First Year Congregational Evaluation On April 21, 1991, Binkley Church hosted a Conflict Resolution Workshop, but the reasons for such a program were not made clear to the membership. Ostensibly, it was to help people learn to deal with their disagreements involving the Desert Storm military operation. However, it was about this time that a review by the congregation of Linda Jordan's first year as Senior Minister was directed by an Evaluation Committee, and there were divided opinions as to her effectiveness in areas of administration staff , relations and absenteeism The complete results were not made public only a general . , statement ofsupport being released in theNewsletter (May 28, 1991): The information provided by the congregation was quite thorough, very thoughtful and most constructive It is clear that a vast majority ofthe church .