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