This is in response to an anonymous comment that was made on the January 23 post.
Mr. Anonymous, by all means, please butt in. I really like it when I see comments from people I don't know or from people I don't hear from often. Although, I do prefer people who sign their name.
I realize that I probably came off a little hard on the SBTC. In no way did I ever mean to indicate that I thought they were bad people. I wasn't singing their praises, don't get me wrong, but I realize that they, like most fundamentalist groups are acting in what they feel is the best interest of both their organization and that of their affiliates.
As far as I know, everything I said about the SBTC was either opinion or taken directly from their website. I don't see how you can say, "what you are writing about the SBTC is not entirely correct" since I only stated my opinions.
The main point of my original post was to illustrate my confusion over why Faith Harbour would want to be a member of SBTC in the first place. Obviously, if you are right about the financial benefits then I've got my answer. But, otherwise, after reviewing the SBTC site it didn't seem that Faith Harbour fit their "mold" with or without a gay ministry.
It seems to me that both Randy and the SBTC have reasonable arguements as to why he is or isn't within the guidelines of SBTC churches. But, to me, it doesn't matter. If I were a member of the The Harbour I would feel a sense of freedom from the leagalistic and inhibiting bonds of the SBTC. This isn't to say that they are bad people, but they obviously have a stricter view of who Randy should be affiliated with than even he himself has. Therefore, why should he maintain his relationship with them. Good for Randy for refusing to abandon a what he feels is a worthwhile ministry just to appease the convention.
The main problem I have with your comment is when you name the salvation aspects of Christianity as the cornerstone of the SBTC, but then say "That is the problem with the STBC and Faith Harbour." There is no connection between the two statements unless you are implying that the Harbour doesn't believe in the basis of Christianity. I don't think that you are saying this if you truly have had lengthy discussions with Randy, so I must ask you for clarification on these statements.
One more thing you stated that gave me pause: "[Randy was] to choose not to support a ministry led by another person who affirms the lifestyle of homosexuality." According to Wendy, Eklektos neither affirms (in the sense you mean) nor denounces homosexuality, despite her personal feelings. So you're saying that if a member church helps a ministry (or church. I agree that it's really irrelevant) and the leader of that ministry disagrees with the SBTC then the member church will be disaffiliated? Or is it just about homosexuality?
That brings me to a much bigger question for extreme right wing? Why homosexuality? Why not pick on adulterers or gossipers or the prideful? Are they with just as much sin? I address this topic here but the question keeps popping up somehow.