Dear Lynn,
I am writing in response to the statement sent out from the Baptist Union Council last month. I understand that a number of people have written about this and I wish, as an accredited minister of over fifty years standing, to add my voice to those who have expressed their view that this statement is inconsistent with the Declaration of Principle and hurtful to some of the most vulnerable people in our churches and among those they serve.
I will not take up your time by repeating the arguments, except to make one point. The reference to “mutual respect” is presumably based on the principles outlined by Paul (Rom 14; 1 Corinthians 8; 10:23-33) concerning disagreements about the eating of food offered to idols, the observing of special days, etc. The point he makes is that those whose conscience is easy about things that others see as sin should refrain from causing offence by openly flouting the feelings of others or by tempting them to do something which they perceive as sinful.
In other matters, however, Paul was extremely intolerant. In writing about those who insisted on Christians being circumcised and submitting to the Jewish laws he makes no compromise, but says that anyone preaching a different message from himself should be cursed (Gal 1:8-9)!
Why the difference? It seems to me that it is a matter of who is being hurt. We do not have the right to condemn a fellow-Christian who acts sincerely on his or her conscience (Rom 14:4). I may feel free to do something others believe is sin, but it will not hurt me to refrain if someone else is hurt by it. Issues like what we eat or do not eat do not affect our relationship with God (1 Cor 8:8), and so in such matters the main priority is to avoid unnecessary offence.
In the matter of circumcision, however, Paul was defending Gentile believers against those who were trying to rob them of their assurance of being accepted by God as they were. The issue of same sex marriage seems to me to fall into that category. If one church registers for it, other churches may be outraged or disgusted, but no one is forcing them to do anything against their own conscience, and they are highly unlikely to be tempted to follow suit! But if a same sex couple who wish to enter a covenant of love in the presence of God are told that it is not allowed, then their love, their relationship, their status as Christians and their personal sense of being accepted by God are being invalidated.
In the light of this I would urge the Baptist Union to withdraw this biased statement for the sake of genuine “mutual respect”.
I fully appreciate that you are dealing with a very difficult situation, and I pray that you will have the faith and courage to stand up to the intolerance of some and hold firmly to the principles we cherish as Baptists – and, more important, to the inclusive and compassionate example of Jesus.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Vincent
I am writing in response to the statement sent out from the Baptist Union Council last month. I understand that a number of people have written about this and I wish, as an accredited minister of over fifty years standing, to add my voice to those who have expressed their view that this statement is inconsistent with the Declaration of Principle and hurtful to some of the most vulnerable people in our churches and among those they serve.
I will not take up your time by repeating the arguments, except to make one point. The reference to “mutual respect” is presumably based on the principles outlined by Paul (Rom 14; 1 Corinthians 8; 10:23-33) concerning disagreements about the eating of food offered to idols, the observing of special days, etc. The point he makes is that those whose conscience is easy about things that others see as sin should refrain from causing offence by openly flouting the feelings of others or by tempting them to do something which they perceive as sinful.
In other matters, however, Paul was extremely intolerant. In writing about those who insisted on Christians being circumcised and submitting to the Jewish laws he makes no compromise, but says that anyone preaching a different message from himself should be cursed (Gal 1:8-9)!
Why the difference? It seems to me that it is a matter of who is being hurt. We do not have the right to condemn a fellow-Christian who acts sincerely on his or her conscience (Rom 14:4). I may feel free to do something others believe is sin, but it will not hurt me to refrain if someone else is hurt by it. Issues like what we eat or do not eat do not affect our relationship with God (1 Cor 8:8), and so in such matters the main priority is to avoid unnecessary offence.
In the matter of circumcision, however, Paul was defending Gentile believers against those who were trying to rob them of their assurance of being accepted by God as they were. The issue of same sex marriage seems to me to fall into that category. If one church registers for it, other churches may be outraged or disgusted, but no one is forcing them to do anything against their own conscience, and they are highly unlikely to be tempted to follow suit! But if a same sex couple who wish to enter a covenant of love in the presence of God are told that it is not allowed, then their love, their relationship, their status as Christians and their personal sense of being accepted by God are being invalidated.
In the light of this I would urge the Baptist Union to withdraw this biased statement for the sake of genuine “mutual respect”.
I fully appreciate that you are dealing with a very difficult situation, and I pray that you will have the faith and courage to stand up to the intolerance of some and hold firmly to the principles we cherish as Baptists – and, more important, to the inclusive and compassionate example of Jesus.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Vincent