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.
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.