​Dear the members of Baptist Union Council,
the Ministerial Recognition Committee
and the Baptist Steering Group,
 
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
I am aware that you will receive some significant angry correspondence in response to the statement by Council from people on both sides of the debate on homosexuality. It is not my wish to be angry and to add to those letters; I appreciate that navigating the conversations surrounding our BUGB response to those who are LGBT+ is something that some of you have put a significant amount of time and energy into over the last few years and so my first job is to say thank you for seeking to steer an emotive discussion well.
 
It was nonetheless with sadness – although I must say, no surprise - that I received Council’s statement in an email this afternoon. I had so far resisted writing in to join in the polemics but I realise now that my silence may have contributed to part of the view that the BUGB ‘norm’ on human sexuality is that marriage is between a man and a woman. For that I apologise, not least to my LGBT brothers and sisters for whom today’s email means a deferment of a service and a commitment they have longed to make within the church. So let me say clearly: I would marry a same sex couple in a heartbeat if my local church allowed it, and I long for the day when all can be included in the holy discipline of love that we affirm for heterosexual couples. I would also like to take some time to respond to some of the content of the statement.
 
In your statement you mention that we Baptists have sought to find a biblical definition of marriage. However, it does not take much introduction to hermeneutics to know that who interprets scripture, which bits of scripture they are interpreting, what type of writing that scripture is, when it was written and the context it was written into, not to mention the context we are interpreting it into, matters for how we understand it. Interestingly, although my church is not at the stage of registering for same sex marriage, they have come to the position that someone in a same-sex relationship could be a deacon of our church. It is worth pointing out that this position was formed following taking the BUGB homosexuality discussion day – it was through discovering the complexity behind what the Bible says that drew them into this inclusivity. So if they asked to register for same-sex marriages then I would, in accordance with the declaration of principle, follow the will of my church meeting’s interpretation of scripture. Nor, it must be said, will I ever push registering for same-sex marriage as an agenda; it is the church meeting’s discernment not mine. This Baptist hermeneutic that Christ is the sole authority pertaining to all matters of faith and practice, that this is discerned in the local gathered group of believers, by interpreting scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is the central reason I am a minister in the Baptist Union. If that is removed from us as an option, then I would have to consider whether the Baptist Union continues to reflect the theology I have passionately declared. Homosexuality is not and never should be the test case for orthodoxy within our Union; we have three points in our declaration of principle which are for us the litmus test of what it is to be Baptist, and only those three.
 
This matters to me because scripture will always be something we have to return to on many issues. To quote Helen Dare, we are ‘on the way and in the fray’ as we interpret and reinterpret what God is saying in scripture.  This is clear when we consider the statement ‘biblical marriage’. A biblical marriage, by one view of scripture, could mean that arguably my husband has the right to marry another wife as well as me. We have discerned that this is not the case, instead we have theologically reflected and decided that instead what matters is faithful monogamy. We could consider that biblical marriage might mean my husband is my spiritual head, where I must be submissive to him, instead we have theologically reflected that my rights as a human being are not subsumed under him, but that mutual love and respect are important. We could consider biblical marriage to be against the words of Paul, who encourages disciples to be like him: to stay celibate and unmarried and work hard for the coming kingdom, but a quick glance at any church’s under 35’s events suggests that instead we believe the weddings in our churches are something to aim for and celebrate.  We could consider biblical marriage to be accepting of a young teenage virgin getting married because her parents decided so, but instead we have theologically reflected that being older and being free to choose are important. We could consider biblical marriage about being fruitful and multiplying, but instead we carefully add square brackets around lines about children in our liturgies and we instead theologically reflect that marriage is also for those who know they can’t or won’t have children. We could argue, strongly, that Biblical marriage includes the understanding that divorce, and especially the remarriage of a divorcee, is against the words of Christ, but instead we have theologically reflected that this is not pastorally appropriate and we have a God of mercy, compassion and second chances. We even ordain those who have been remarried.
 
So in the light of this ‘biblical marriage’ I would like to tell you about a key theological reflection that is governing our response to human sexuality in the bible. In 2015 I submitted my Master’s thesis to Oxford University on the language we use to argue for women in ministry, realising that overwhelmingly our arguments assume a ‘complementary’ pairing between men and women. I am about to simplify my argument here, but in short we argue that men and women are two halves of a whole who together make up the image of God. We have argued, therefore, that we need to reclaim femininity and we need to encourage women in to ministry in order to have this divine image manifested in our ordained ministry. We have looked at verses like Galatians 3:28, that there is no male and female in Christ Jesus, and we have spent much energy showing that this undoes the hierarchy between men and women but not the differences. This is a debate that has taken an underlying hierarchical view that men and women are complementary pairs, where women should take certain spiritual roles and men others, and cleverly subverted it, arguing instead for an egalitarianism. Apart from simply showing that this is the Union’s theological working on what it means to be a woman in ministry, one of my questions was whether this was helpful at contributing to egalitarian understandings of women in ministry. We know that the percentages of ordained women remain low and are particularly abysmal for those who are from an ethnic minority, and it only takes a couple of women ministers to be in the same room to hear some of the litany of prejudices that they experience week in week out. In response to this I examined some recent gender theory, which offers numerous cautions in viewing men and women as binary pairs. My conclusion followed that we need a better theology of what it is to be sexed or gendered humans in the image of God because ours isn’t leading to the emancipation of women or speaking into contemporary society.
 
I tell you this because I believe it also matters for our conversation about human sexuality. We still view women and men as complementary halves of a whole and this therefore also means that we read this into our conversation on human sexuality. If women and men are complementary in a way that reflects God, then our follow on conclusion is that women and women, or men and men, or indeed, those who do not easily fit either the title of man or woman, cannot be complementary pairs because they don’t reflect the image of God. I would like to add some note of caution to this conclusion as I have above: in this view someone who is single is also therefore not the full image of God, and when we consider Galatians 3:28 are we not looking at the whole church, not simply a person or couple within it?
 
Perhaps if we have theologically reflected that monogamous, childfree, women honouring, age appropriate divorcees are able to enter marriage, there will be room in the future to also discern that men and women are not binary and complementary pairs, but that the whole human race in all its creativity and diversity is the image of God? And so, maybe two men or two women could also commit to a disciplined, holy life of love together? I have heard from those who disagree with me on sexuality that it is not our job to change with the world, so let us not pander to a vain, anything-goes, cohabiting, heteronormative society, let us offer something else: that those in same-sex relationships can also live this life of covenant commitment for better or for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death does them part. This is not bending to our society, this is offering the challenge of Christian marriage to a group of people we have and continue to isolate from our churches. This is not a conversation that is going to go away. I believe that the Holy Spirit is calling the church to include those who are LGBT+ in our view of marriage, and so I will continue to work and pray for that to happen, because in my experience standing against God is unproductive.
 
This is my belief. It is a belief I have come to from interrogating scripture and social science. It is a belief that I have come to from sitting with friends and in pastoral visits with people whose mature love receives discrimination where I would receive praise. It is a belief that has led me to try to leave the church as a teenager, it is a belief that made me deny a call to ministry for years longer than I should have and it is a belief I offer to my many friends of my generation who cannot understand why I would be a Christian when the church is a sexist and homophobic institution.
 
If we wish to come to a settled place of mutual respect, then any statement also needs to include my voice and it needs to include the unvoiced pain of many who are marginalised or who have already left our churches. Let us be aware of (and honest about) the heteronormative, binary understanding of gender that is our starting point for scriptural interpretation on this issue, and then let us continue this conversation, as we travel the way – and in the fray – of Jesus Christ, our sole authority pertaining to all matters of faith and practice.
 
With every blessing,
 
Reverend Elizabeth Allison-Glenny
Passiontide 2016

Dear Stephen and Lynn

I wonder if I might make an observation simply as a local church minister concerned for Mission.

Each church has it’s own nature, culture and makeup, and that is reflected in the people with whom they have a natural affinity, and thus a natural missional connection.

Therefore the question of same sex marriage registration is not simply an internal matter of biblical interpretation and Theology. It has profound missiological implications, since the church’s response to same sex partnerships, and their choice to register or not will at least in part determine the people they can reach in mission, the cultures, sectors of society and people groups who will be open to association with the church, leading to belonging and believing.

Churches that have registered for same sex marriages will find it easier to build trusting relationships with one sector of society, especially those wary of what they see as traditional “church attitudes”, whilst those that choose not to register will appeal to a different sector.

It is important therefore that Churches are free to follow Christ’s leading in their particular context given their make-up and connections, and “be true to themselves” in this matter, or we may be asking them to alienate themselves from the people they have been sent to relate to and minister Christ among.

We live in a multi cultural, multi racial society where attitudes to sexuality are often culturally derived and deep seated. Dare I suggest that at the moment having both affirming and non affirming churches is essential if the different parts of our Baptist family are to reach the different parts of society? That “mutual respect” goes beyond respect for internal church related matters of biblical interpretation and theology and actually extends to mutual respect for the nature and missional calling of the different parts of the body of Christ present in our Baptist family?

As well as thinking about the impact of our choices on brothers and sisters within the Baptist family we must surely be giving even more thought to the impact of our choices upon those to whom Christ sent us to minister the gospel.

I do understand that the BSG has a huge responsibility in this matter, and I am praying fervently for grace wisdom and inspiration as you gather in Christ’s presence next week to consider all these aspects of a challenging question.

With love, appreciation for all your prayerful work, and my prayers for you all

Dear Stephen and Lynne,

I write to you as one of the earliest and longest serving trainers appointed by the union to deliver the teaching material, designed to help churches and associations in the process of considering the question of same sex marriage in our their particular social contexts.
We were chosen as people who did not have any “axe to grind” or any involvement in the debate, and as part of our appointment we made a commitment not to disclose our own views, (which it was expected would be subject to change anyway), and I do not intend to do so in this letter.

I’m writing because I have some questions about the statement issued, and indeed the wisdom of issuing any statement which gives greater weight to one view or the other whilst the thinking of many is still in flux.

A few things cause me concern:

1/ The aim to reach “A settled position” at this time.

It was clear from the outset in 2008 and is still very clear, that for many this is an ongoing issue, and their thinking is in flux.

My experience, reflected by many of the trainers, was that in every church or association where we delivered the material, people felt they were “on a journey” “beginning to re-evaluate years of an unquestioned interpretation of scripture”. Whilst so many in our union and in the wider church feel their thinking is “provisional”, is it wise to expect to reach a “settled position”?

Have we not always been a pilgrim people journeying together, and often experiencing change in our thinking and our actions as a result of interaction with one another and with the society around? Is that not a fundamental part of being Baptists together?

2/ Lynne’s statement in the covering letter that
“We are dealing here with deeply and sincerely held biblical convictions”

It is a demonstrable fact that Bible believing Christians differ over what scripture itself is telling us for this day and age, and even in different circumstances and cultures, and the Union appointed trainers like myself to help churches to understand why that is, and to help them in mutual respect of one another’s conclusions.

We are dealing with people whose deeply held convictions on biblical authority are the same, but whose understanding of it’s application in this matter, in their particular context, may or may not have changed from the historic position.

Whilst some of the more conservative evangelicals do argue that those who come to an affirming position are no longer to be considered “evangelical”, that is not the view of the many I have met who have examined the scriptures afresh and come to a more open position. Nor is it the view of those who feel that the scriptures are neutral on monogamous committed homosexual relationships, but that the passages on justice make it an imperative that they welcome, affirm, and marry same sex couples.

It would be most helpful if any future statement recognised that whilst it may be easier for people to come to an affirming position from a liberal perspective, many evangelicals have re-examined scripture and, along with theological reflection, have come to an affirming position.
It would be helpful if any reference to “Mutual Respect” acknowledged (or better still stressed) this fact.

Perhaps something like “We are dealing here with deeply and sincerely held biblical convictions on both sides of the debate”. Or “We are dealing here with deeply and sincerely held convictions about the different understandings of scripture in this matter” might be fairer to the many who have wrestled in good faith with the meaning of scripture and come to a less conservative view of it’s application.

3/ I am concerned that that those seeking to affirm appear to be being referred to as
“a voice from the margins”.
This does not reflect my experience of 8 years as a sexuality trainer for the Union leading churches and associations in exploring this question with the biblical and theological material provided.
My experience has been that in almost every church and association those wishing to affirm have been a significant proportion of the overall group from the start, and that at the end of the series of session the vast majority of those participating would describe their views as “provisional”.

I would humbly suggest that far from being “a voice from the margins” those seeking to affirm same sex marriage and those who would consider their views “provisional” (And thus be uncomfortable with a statement giving “as settled position”) are a large and significant part of our Baptist Family.

4/ I am concerned that “Mutual Respect” is interpreted by some as refraining from what they believe to be the mind of Christ for their particular situation.

Surely mutual respect would mean that Church A may conclude that in their situation, with their congregation, the cultures in society around them, the Lord is leading them not to register, but they would respect that Church B, in a different place, with a different congregation, different cultures and mission opportunities have carefully and honestly examined the scriptures, reflected theologically, and come to the conclusion that the Mind of Christ in that place is that they should register for same sex marriages. If respect is to be mutual, then each church would respect the integrity of the other.

It might be helpful to follow up the initial statement with one that recognises that for some churches the sense of God’s leading on this is very strong, and urging respect for those churches who feel it is imperative upon them in their situation to take this step of registering.

In conclusion I am surprised that a process that began with a commitment to enabling individuals and individual churches to come to their own mind on this has apparently ended with a national statement urging all churches to the same action (or non-action).

A key factor in the 2008 decision to enable and facilitate churches in making up their own minds was the desire to avoid the hurt and division that had come about in other denominations by attempting to set policy one way or the other at a national level and in a national forum.

As a minister in an LEP at the time I was at the URC Assembly in 1999 (Along with Nigel Wright who represented the BU) and saw first hand how much pain and division arose by trying to determine a national policy on same sex relationships (at the time it was over clergy in same sex relationships, before same sex marriage).

I was delighted that the Union decided to do things differently, it seemed a very wise (and very Baptist) response.
Perhaps the statement could have been preceded by a clearer explanation as to why council found themselves back-peddling on that decision and moving towards setting a national policy, something that has not gone well in any of the other denominations.

I deeply desire to see our union hold together over this as well as many other issues, and feel that a greater emphasis on mutual respect expressing itself in respecting the integrity of those who think differently, rather than on submission to convictions of one group would be more likely to achieve that. It is after all the historic way of being Baptist that has held us together thus far.

Dear Lynn and Stephen,
 
I have delayed writing this letter for a few reasons. One is that my husband and I with our five-month-old son made the move from the North East of England to the Welsh marches this week. The preparations, etc. have occupied much of our time attention and energy over the last few weeks. Another is that I had no idea my feedback was wanted, as it had not been sought. A third is a general feeling of disenchantment with the Union and a belief that nothing I can say will make any difference, but I decided I couldn’t say that no one would listen if I didn’t at least try to be heard, so here goes.
 
To introduce myself and give a little background, my husband was a Baptist minister when I married him. He received his handshake at the London Assembly (2012, I think). He left his first church in 2014, after six years of ministry, to support me as I became a Minister in Training with NBC. When I fell pregnant, my training placement fell apart. I have extended my maternity leave from College, and we have moved to the Welsh marches where we both feel at home. My husband has taken up caring work, his career before he went to college, as the churches in this area are generally much more conservative than we, and are usually equally unable to support a minister.
 
I received the email notifying ministers of the BU Council’s new statement with regard to marriage equality while in the midst of preparations to move, and I was deeply disturbed by its contents. The long introduction seemed intended to act as a blow softener, and the more I read the more I dreaded what the ending would be.
 
The statement was clearly worded in an attempt to reconcile both sides, but not in a way I would recognise as mutual or respectful. The suppression of conscience for the sake of unity strikes me as a dangerous precedent and contrary to our Baptist principles and the Declaration of Principle. It is certainly not a practice one would encourage in other areas of life, suppression of conscience is tantamount to deception, a bad ingredient in any relationship. Forcing, suggesting or urging individuals and churches to live or act contrary to their conscience is effectively keeping them in the closet and will, sooner or later, breed resentment.
 
For my husband it was sooner; he resigned from the Accredited list within a week of the release of this statement. For him, the Council’s statement acted as the last straw in his relationship with the Union and its member churches, an affirmation that he and his views are not welcome within the BUGB community. For myself, it has raised serious questions over my desire to complete my training. I doubt whether I can affirm the code of conduct for ministers. It seems BU Council does not seriously respect my views or wish to include my theology within the wider Union. I am welcome, but only if I will conform, suppress my conscience and refrain from rocking the boat.
 
It is my sincere hope that the BU may soon be able to embrace a position that affirms the freedom of conscience of all churches and ministers on this issue to go, or to stay, and encourages churches to remain in the Union because they value associating together and the other benefits the Union offers, not because they, or others, are willing to suspend their conscience, suppress conversation or further alienate the marginalised and scarred from our churches.
 
Regards,
 
Robyn Shepherd

​A Response to the March 2016 Baptist Union Council Statement
by Revd Dr Richard L Kidd
 
If I simply say that I am offended by the March 2016 statement of the Baptist Union Council concerning the registration of Baptist churches for the conduct of same-sex marriages, it is possible that I will be misunderstood as intolerant. I am deeply offended, however, not because I am intolerant but because I feel myself to be badly compromised in my covenant commitment as a Recognised Minister of the Baptist Union.
 
Sadly, I do not find in this statement a recognisable identity of the Baptist covenant community that I have served, to the best of my ability and integrity, for more than forty years. Indeed, I find it outrageous that such a statement should purport to find its basis in our crucially important Declaration of Principle, our Basis of Union, when it so obviously contradicts its spirit and, almost certainly, its letter.
 
I write this as one who only came to value our Basis of Union already some years into my service as a Baptist minister. In 1972, when I first applied for training as a Baptist minister, I was turned down by one of our Colleges because my zealous charismatic evangelical convictions were seen as too extreme to be contained within the scope of the then Baptist Union. Only later, after training and some years as a Baptist minister, did I come to realise what a broad church we rightly are and should be, and how deeply this is enshrined in our constitutional documents, focused most strongly in the Declaration of Principle. I came to value this so highly that, although I have now travelled many degrees of arc across a theological spectrum, I have remained consistently committed to accepting and remaining in active fellowship with a very wide range of fellow Baptists, including many with whom I profoundly disagree on an equally wide range of issues. I would like to think that today I would still gladly welcome my own earlier charismatic fundamentalist self into fellowship – even though I would now consider him badly misguided.
 
In the 1990s (odd how these things turn around, is it not?) I found myself named as Editor of what has become a foundation text for many of today's Baptist ministerial students (in Britain and around the world) working to understand our Baptist heritage, entitled Something to Declare. In it, accompanied by some of the most able pastor-theologians of a generation, I was able to give voice to the central place that the Declaration of Principle had come to play in my own responsible discipleship as a Baptist minister.
 
What is it, then, that offends me so deeply? Two things stand out.
 
First and foremost I am offended that any Council of the Union should presume to tell me and my covenanted colleagues what a biblical view of marriage actually looks like - as if, indeed, there were such a thing anyway! In fact, I hold one of many widely respected interpretations of scripture on this issue, and understand that the only discipline within which I am asked to live as a faithful Baptist minister is to remain open to having my interpretation tested, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in a recognised Baptist congregational community. This I continue gladly to do.
 
Second I am offended that I should be publicly urged to live with such absurd asymmetries in our covenant relationships - in which I accept the strongly held views of others, without any reciprocal undertaking that they will also accept mine. I am offended because, in reality, I have already freely and faithfully chosen to make just such a commitment over many years, without anyone needing to ask more of me than I promised at the time of ordination – it is already there in our commitment to the Declaration of Principle. Over many years, I have tolerated the views of ministers and congregations with whom I profoundly disagree. Some have condemned the ministries of women, some have resisted calls to denounce racism and some have demonised our gay disciple-companions advocating remedial medical intervention. I have remained throughout consistent in my tolerant fellowship with them, and I do not need to be urged to offer further tolerance. Now Council dares to ask me and other faithful congregations and ministers to refrain from affirming our understanding of God’s gracious presence in loving and committed same-sex relationships. We need to be very clear where real intolerance is located.
 
In the name, therefore, of a heritage that I have come proudly to recognise as Baptist, clearly stated in our Declaration of Principle, I request that the Baptist Union Council urgently moves to rescind its March 2016 statement, and offers an appropriate apology, for the offence it has caused to many of its committed congregations and ministers and for its ill-measured failure to do proper justice to its own Basis of Union.

Dear Lynn and Stephen,
Firstly let me thank you both for all you are doing on behalf of the Baptist family at this time, and assure you of my and others continued prayers.
Although a Trustee for HEBA, I am writing to you both in a personal capacity, however I may make reference to my views regarding our Associations engagement with the issue.
Theologically I am still processing much around the whole issue of SSM, and would say that I am currently in a state of unknowing! I am reminded of Walter Brueggemann"s encouragement to 'only ever let your interpretation of scripture be the penultimate one' - you never know when God might show you what He really means. My concerns then are more to do with the manner of the process by which the statement was arrived at, and my belief that as Baptists we have held to the view that differences of theological interpretations were respected and valued.
With regards to the process, you must be aware that BU council, existing one hopes as a representative voice of the Baptist family, is regarded with some suspicion by many within that family. We did reach a point of some openness with social media updates, but in terms of the last Council, nothing. To the best of my knowledge, the Council representatives from within HEBA have made no attempts to encourage and welcome the broader views of the family on the issue of SSM - no open forums or workshops etc. Indeed as an Association Board, we have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this in any way at all. I suspect we are not alone, and that the voice of Council may not necessarily be a reflection of the views of the wider Baptist family. The reference of mutual respect in the statement is a misnomer, since many feel there was none or very little mutuality involved.
In terms of BUGB feeling the need to make a statement on this issue, many others have I know already pointed out that it seems strange to single out this matter, when there is silence on other significant issues in terms of church life - women in leadership being but one. We do seem in danger of finding ourselves focusing down onto one aspect, that of sexuality, amongst many that would make up what I might call Christian Morality. We know where that got the Church of England!
I follow a daily 'blog' from Richard Rohr, whom I am sure you will know. He spoke at a conference on Christian Morality, and I have the podcast. Allow me to include a quote from him here to illustrate, far better than I can, the danger of preoccupation on a single moral issue at the expense of many others perhaps of even greater importance.
"In recent years one would have thought that homosexuality and abortion were the new litmus tests of authentic Christianity. Where did this come from? They never were the criteria of proper membership for the first 2000 years, but reflect very recent culture wars instead. And largely from people who think of themselves as “traditionalists”! (The fundamentals were already resolved in the early Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed. Note that none of the core beliefs are about morality at all. The Creeds are more mystical, cosmological, and about aligning our lives inside of a huge sacred story.) When you lose the great mystical level of religion, you always become moralistic about this or that as a cheap substitute. It gives you a false sense of being on higher spiritual ground than others.
Jesus is clearly much more concerned about issues of pride, injustice, hypocrisy, blindness, and what I have often called “The Three Ps” of power, prestige, and possessions, which are probably 95 percent of Jesus’ written teaching. We conveniently ignore this 95 percent to concentrate on a morality that usually has to do with human embodiment. That’s where people get righteous, judgmental, and upset, for some reason. The body seems to be where we carry our sense of shame and inferiority, and early-stage religion has never gotten much beyond these “pelvic” issues. As Jesus put it, “You ignore the weightier matters of the law—justice, mercy, and good faith . . . and instead you strain out gnats and swallow camels” (Matthew 23:23-24). We worry about what people are doing in bed much more than making sure everybody has a bed to begin with."

You will, I know, be aware of those who have been hurt by the statement issued. I can understand their confusion and concerns. There are some within our family who feel that churches and pastors, following what they believe to be their prayerful consciences, should be somehow 'punished' and excluded from the family. I hope we all feel that to be a stance lacking in grace and mercy.
I pray for you both, and for others involved that some serious reflection brings wisdom into this situation. I am already concerned at the length of this email, knowing you may have many to read and reflect upon, and feel I should end by simply reaffirming my prayers for you both, for Council, and indeed for those within our family hurting at this time about this and other issues and challenges facing us in living out our faith and seeing Gods kingdom grow.

With every blessing

Duncan

Rev Duncan MacLean

Dear Stephen and Lynn,

I read with some dismay, but little surprise, Lynn's letter to ministers last week pursuant to the statement issued at the conclusion of the most recent meeting of BU Council. I suppose that I am more than a little older than many of those who are now writing to share what they describe as their disappointment at the Council statement - in fact disappointment has been used in just about every letter that you have received and on one occasion preceded by the word 'bitter' - but I too share this overwhelming sense of disappointment.

I have been the minister of Madeley Baptist Church since 2002 and one of its leaders since 1997. We have not registered for SSM but we are an affirming church of more than 60 members and have one openly gay member who is very much part of our family. I do not intend to rehearse all the matters contained in the many letters you are receiving other than to say that they all appear to have been written from compassionate hearts.

In all of this current furore I sense your desire to hold firmly to the Baptist way but that this aspiration has been utterly defeated by the comments 'humbly urge' and 'mutual respect'. To agree to differ has been pivotal to our ecclesiology as a union of churches which coupled with 'walking together and watching over each other' has underpinned the interdependence which I have valued over many years. I find the language of the statement to be coercive and contrary to the Baptist way - it's presents a 'one way street' in which one theology attempts to trump another. I stand firmly with a senior colleague who wrote several days ago, "Theology which means that people kills themselves is bad theology."

Please do not underestimate the hurt and confusion that has been caused by the Council statement - even now I believe that the time will come when those responsible for this will see the need to apologise for the harm that has have caused. I hope that the apology does not take as long to materialise as that so fulsomely offered for the Slave Trade and is yet awaited for those women who are still discriminated against in some of our union churches.

Best wishes,

Keith Osmund-Smith

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

​Hi Stephen and Lynn
 
I thought that I would send you an email as I was made aware that you are welcoming response from Baptist Ministers in regard to the recent statement by Council over Same-Sex Marriage.
 
I am disappointed by the statement for a number of reasons.
 
Throughout Church history we have, as Christ followers, sought to grapple with the great unanswerable mystery of 'Who is God?' Without doubt Church history is resplendent with majestic analogies, wondrous metaphors and breathtaking descriptions of who this God is that we have encountered in Jesus of Nazareth. And time again we have fallen to our knees in wonder as all these words, in all their power seeking to describe the Indescribable, have been wanting as the simplicity of the name Jesus is uttered, meaning, ultimately, all words fall away in light of the Word made flesh.
 
In other words, we are about Jesus.
 
It is Jesus whom we encounter in the Garden on resurrection morning, not Adam. Humanity then, is not marching towards some Edenic past, rather it is released into a Christological future, beckoned towards its goal in who Jesus is, the True Human. Or as some of the Church Fathers put it, 'He become what we are so that we might become what he is.' Therefore, any discussion surrounding humanness and sexuality should be grounded in the Person of Jesus and who it He is making us to be.
 
Perfection then was never found in the “male and female” and the distinctions we have, it is found in Christ. Whereas before Christ our relationships were determined by the Law, differentiations determined by social and ethnic distinctions, now, in Christ, our relationships are a sign of redemption, a glimpse of the redemptive power of God, a ‘new creation’ where the old order of things have passed away.
 
Therefore the LGBTIQ community can equally model relationships of redemption determined through who they are 'in Christ'.
 
My ministry is one where I 'sit on the margins' with people from all different walks of life who have never even considered 'going to church'. Some of those people I encounter and spend time with are from the LGBTIQ community. Until I began building relationships with this community I had no idea of the scale and level of pain, persecution and loneliness they had encountered through the years. One man described the beatings he had endured by the POLICE because he was a gay man. He spoke of how the gay community had seen lynchings and humiliation, all because of their sexuality. This same man described the pain of being told by a vicar after a funeral of one of his gay friends, that he would burn in hell forever for being a 'gay pervert'.
 
In all our discussions I think we must not neglect to highlight the reality on the ground of what real people have gone through within the LGBTIQ community. Depression and suicide rates amongst the LGBTIQ community remains shockingly high. As Baptists we must be in the midst of the LGBTIQ community seeking to walk in relationship and solidarity.
 
We worship the Triune God. We are people created in God's own image, and so relationship is the primary mode of reality. Loneliness threatens the quality of our life at the deepest level for loneliness militates against the very One we were created in the image of. Loneliness has no place within God's own Self, and so where we encounter loneliness we are encountering that which militates against the very nature of God and humanity, a humanity created to be in relationship.
 
As Baptists our views surrounding dignity and equality in regard to humanity has changed in our history because of our continual encounter with the Risen Christ. We have, therefore, changed our hermeneutics when reading certain passages of Scripture. It seems that there are many of us who are continuing to do this in regard to Same-Sex Marriage. I would have hoped that churches and ministers would have the freedom to follow their conscious on this issue. Yet the language of 'mutual respect' used in the statement by Council seems to suggest otherwise.
 
I will seek to continue to minister wherever I believe Christ leads me, seeking to join in the work I believe he is already doing within my community. That work is among all different kinds of people, from all different walks of life, seeking to encounter relationship. I will continue to try and be faithful to Jesus who I believe sits on the margins, and I will celebrate depth of love wherever I encounter it.
 
Thank you for all that you do. I recognise the immensely difficult time you are facing and the pressure you must feel. Please be assured of my ongoing prayers.
 
Grace and peace,
 
Joseph Haward.

​Dear Lynn Green and Stephen Keyworth
 
I write this letter in response to the letter by the Baptist Union of Great Britain released in April 2016 and the statement it contained entitled ‘Baptists Together and Registration of Buildings for Same-Sex Marriage’
 
I have known Leytonstone United Free Church for 5 years now, since I became friends with their former minister’s daughter at school. I have therefore had the privilege to watch them navigate the journey of the Marriage (same-sex couples) Act 2013 and the way Church Council in Leytonstone quickly decided that registration as a same-sex wedding venue was the right thing to do. This, I assume, came about not only as a result of their faith but also their wider sense of morality, the bible does after all give relatively little guidance on same sex relationships. I was delighted to be a part of one of the first churches in the UK to register as a same sex wedding venue and have enormous respect for the community that makes that church what it is. ‘Radical welcome’ is what LUFC calls this on its website, a website which doesn’t hide their acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other queer people, unlike so many other churches who present themselves with a stiff upper lip and pretend this segment of humanity doesn’t exist at all.
 
This pretending LGBT+ people don’t exist is what the statement from the Baptist Union of Great Britain felt like. It was patronising, it was dehumanising. The clinical language of ‘same sex attraction’ it uses is offensive and to read it feels as though it’s describing a disease. Honestly, it surprised me to read such a statement coming from a body able to call LUFC a member because I could see none of their spirit in that statement. It also felt like a slap in the face to the principles of church governance that underpin the baptist union. It seemed to be saying ‘make up your mind, but make sure you say no’. It seemed to forget that LGBT+ people are people.
 
When Leytonstone United Free Church became a registered same sex wedding venue, it gave me a warm feeling. I’ve never felt safer in a church than I do in LUFC since that decision. This is because it isn’t really about marriage, it’s about how LGBT+ people are perceived. It’s about whether those making decisions feel it is even conceivable to allow people like me to be second class citizens on their watch. The church council at LUFC seem to understand this and foster a friendly environment where I don’t feel afraid to hold my boyfriend’s hand, to be honest about who I am. It would be devastating if they were to back away from that for any reason, particularly if it was in response to pressure from the Baptist Union. So rarely do I encounter a church where I feel valued as a human being. I don’t feel comfortable in the methodist church I was baptised in, one of many where I still can’t get married. On the rare occasion I do find myself within its walls, I feel strange, an awkwardness and a lack of belonging which I can scarcely describe and a fear that I might be attacked, however nicely it might be phrased, for the moral inadequacy that so many denominations perceive being gay to be.
 
At the end of the statement is a sentence about mutual respect and that is at the crux of this. Baptist churches being asked to refrain from supporting their members, to refrain from ensuring they are a safe place and a welcoming place for people to come to join together and worshiping god is not mutual respect. It’s entirely disrespectful. It is disrespectful to LGBT+ baptists and would be baptists who are pushed out into the cold by this message and it is disrespectful to those who want to welcome them in. I understand there are people who feel, for reasons that don’t make a lot of sense to me, that marriage should be a right which is denied to people like me and my boyfriend. Or who think that the right to marry people of the opposite sex is somehow sufficient or equal. But mutual respect is not acquiescing to the desires of these people like the BUGB appears to be doing. It is accommodating their beliefs in a way which maintains respect for the people who disagree with them. Respect for the men with boyfriends and the women with girlfriends who are pushed out by ‘refraining’ from same sex marriages. Respect for Jesus who taught a message of love, not one of discrimination.
 
Sincerely,
 
Jack Mitchell
“Same-Sex Attracted”
Church Attender currently living away at university
14 April 2016

​Dear Stephen and Lynn,

I have thought really hard before deciding to write to you in response to the recent statement from the BUGB Council regarding Same Sex Marriage (SSM). I recognise the incredible challenge that you have faced as you sought to listen to diverse voices and endeavour to find a place that is broadly acceptable at this time. I do not sense that this is a "settled position" and to be honest will be disappointed if it is, not because of my own understandings on the matter, but because it feels both untidy and unhelpful. I am a minister accredited by BUGB who saw in the decision presented in May 2014, a truly Baptist position, allowing each local church to make its own decision – now it is urging them not to exercise that freedom out of respect for those churches who might choose to leave the Union if they did (or that's how I read it anyway). What follows are my thoughts (not those of my congregation, who have not had opportunity to discuss this) for which I take full responsibility.

As part of an issue of Baptists Together magazine focussing on Covenant, an article was published within which were these words:

"As ordained ministers, we find our names on list of those who are in covenant relationship with the Baptist Union (or Unions in my case) that accredits us to serve their churches. For me, this too is really important: not only do I take seriously my ordination vows, I also recognise a commitment to accept the discipline of the Union(s). This is healthy and it is challenging! The second clause of the Declaration of Principle asserts that each local congregation is at liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer Christ’s laws. Diversity, difference and even disagreement are possible, even, dare I say, desirable, within a covenanted relationship; my own discipleship and ministry has been greatly enriched by sharing with ministers whose theology and spirituality differs significantly from my own. One of my favourite Biblical metaphors for the church is Paul’s use of the human body in all its diversity, yet, within it, each part is vital and valued for what it is. For me, covenant delights in diversity, recognising the potential enrichment it offers each participant, and generating new insights into what it means to live as Christ’s disciples, whether that is within the local congregation or more widely at cluster, Association or Union level."

I applaud those words. I delight in the diversity within our Union and accept those parts of that diversity that would seek to silence my voice because of my chromosomal makeup, or because my body has been "mutilated" by cancer treatment, or because I am single (and yes, I have heard all of those). So it saddens me very deeply that, as a Union we are "humbly urge(ing)" churches that feel led of God to offer SSM to couples in stable, faithful relationships to abstain from so-doing. Not only is this unjust, and inconsistent (no equivalent urging seems to arise in relation to the gender of ministers) it is, in my view un-Baptist, based on the Declaration of Principle.

I could, but have chosen not to, share with you my own long journey from an "accepting" position (i.e. based on celibacy) to an "affirming" position (of stable, faithful relationships) for those within our churches who discover that they were "born gay". I could also share with you the stories of those in each of the congregations I've served both as a student and a minister who are gay, some openly, others who have told me quietly and in private, some in relationships, others celibate, but I choose not to as I have not sought their permission. I am proud of the gay people in my current church – proud that they are there, and humbled by their gracious support for me as I walk the tight-rope of my covenant with the Union. As one of them said in response to the announcement, so do I: "I'm not going anywhere". I am committed to staying in the Union and I will seek to remain in relationship with those whose views differ from my own. However, being part of a congregation "at liberty under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret and administer Christ's Law" I also humbly choose to honour the Covenant I share with them.

In closing, I want to restate my gratitude to you for all you have done to achieve what you have, and I certainly realise it could have been far "worse" all round. I continue to uphold you, and the Union, in my prayers in these challenging times.

God's blessing on you this Eastertide and always.

Dear Lynn and Stephen

On 13 May 2014 the Baptist Union of Great Britain told me that they were “Upholding the liberty of a local church to determine its own mind on this matter, in accordance with our Declaration of Principle, we also recognise the freedom of a minister to respond to the wishes of their church, where their conscience permits, without breach of disciplinary guidelines.”

This was a great day. This was a day when I felt proud to be a Christian, in particular I felt proud to be a Baptist. Prior to that I was just Christian, I did not belong to any one denomination, if anything I was leaning slightly towards other denominations, particularly the URC as they were more accepting.

That statement meant the world to me. It meant that a teenager associated with our church could post on her Facebook page that now one day she could get married in her own church. It meant that a lady in our area, who had given up attending church because she was a lesbian, was able to join us and is now a church member. It meant that a male atheist friend who hates Christians and Christianity because he sees it as standing for oppression and judgement was able to come to church with his partner and feel welcomed even though they held hands during the service. I love all three of those people and I love that I belong to a church who accepts them as made in the image of God.

I know this acceptance is not everyone’s story. I know my Christian best friend at school was beaten up on the way home from school by other Christians because he was gay even though he was not and had never been involved in “homosexual genital practice” at the time. The experience did not bring him closer to God. Another story – a peer in one church I attended came out as gay forcing his parents to publically apologise to the church shortly followed by a large number of my friends leaving the church as what had been a safe and welcoming place was now a hostile and judgemental one. I befriended another Christian couple where he felt gay but had entered a heterosexual marriage as that is what ‘God wanted’ – I do not believe God wanted either of them to feel trapped in a loveless marriage.

I never expected every church to decide to suddenly become accepting and affirming but I rejoiced that my local church could.
Personally, I believe this is the essence of what it means to be a Christian. I follow Jesus who always welcomed those who were pushed away including children, the sick, and tax collectors. Inclusion didn’t stop when Jesus left, it continued as the apostles slowly realised that the Good News was for the gentiles as well as the Jews. I believe it is also for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, pansexual, a sexual, questioning as well as heterosexual.

I also believe the freedom to discern is fundamental to Baptist theology. A denomination which was founded on diversity and unity. A union of Calvinist and Armenians when that was the biggest theological argument in the church. We do not have a pope, there is no one set aside to intercede between us and God on the right way to view theology; instead we are a body of believers who must all find God in scripture and the lines between scripture where we interoperate how this applies to our lives and what the Spirit is saying today.

I am disappointed that you have been forced to retreat from the 13 May statement. I had been hoping and praying that the movement would be the other way to allow gay ministers to be open about who they really are. We already have ministers in civil partnerships; churches who disapprove would never call such a minister, there are other churches who would call them and would also happily name a committed union of two people a marriage. I also hoped that an affirming minister would be given the freedom to perform marriages in other churches e.g. churches in ministerial transition or where the minister was happy for it to happen but did not want to take part personally.

Your statement on 18 March 2016 asserts that you are re-affirming Biblical marriage. This is nonsense. Biblical marriage includes Jacob marrying two sisters (the first through mistaken identity) and then their two handmaids. There are lots of questions here – as a church we should not accept a marriage where the man does not know who the woman is and the woman has not even met the man. We would also be against polygamy. Biblical marriage includes Ruth uncovering Boaz’s feet while he slept, spending the night with him and then exchanging sandals in a marriage service the next day – I am not sure many conservative Christians would think kindly on encouraging women to spend the night with an older man to convince him to marry her. Biblical marriage includes Isaac marrying Rebecca by bringing her into his dead mother’s tent – a Biblical view of marriage which seems to imply that they became married when he “took” her. If we recognise marriage in the consummation then many people are already married. There is also something to consider here about arranged marriages – both talk to the servant and then marry each other, I am not sure that is a positive model for marriage preparation classes. Biblical marriage includes the command that if a man rapes a virgin he should then marry her – I do not want my church forcing rape victims to marry their attackers. Marriage as an institution is an evolving concept, what we have now with a legal contract and church ceremony with signing registers, white dresses and tux, vows, hymns… none of that would be recognised as Biblical marriage.

Your humbly urging (by definition a contradiction in terms) that we should refrain from conducting service of equal marriage is deeply upsetting. I and my church have remained in the Union. We have been very open with the LBA, with our district and others about our inclusive belief. No-one has asked us to leave. Nobody even challenged us until our regional ministers felt unable to represent us at settlement. One minister in our district affirmed us saying “I am not sure I agree theologically but I am pleased you are affirming as there needs to be someone willing to reach out to the gay community” (paraphrase).

I am sorry that there are churches threatening to leave the union. I hope they do not, but I find myself personally unable to retreat from affirming equal marriage. I hope my church does not retreat from it either when this is discussed in future. We are part of the body of Christ and one part cannot say to another “I do not need you”. We are here, we will not go away as we can’t; there are too many people we love whose lives may depend on us saying we do not condone homophobia whether it is overt or exclusive in nature.

I write this for all those who I know and love who are LGBT. For Anne, Becky, Ben, Calvin, Clair, Colin, Dan, Derek, Elliot, Geoff, Issy, Jack, Jak, Jake, Jamie, John, Jon, Julia, Larry, Lily, Martyn, Max, Megan, Milosh, Paul, Pete, Rachel, Ray, Rebeca, Richard, Rob, Rosie, Sam, Sophie, Steve, Tim, Tony, Wesley, William. Every single one of them IS made in the image of God and every one of them is also made lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

I will continue to pray for our union as we continues to talk together on this important pastoral issue. I hope the next statement and the rules for ministers allows for a greater freedom in the Spirit.

Yours in Christ

Amy
(Some names changed)

​Amy Louise Mackay Willshire