Dear Lynn and Stephen,
I understand that the Baptist Steering Group meets next week; and that it is open to receiving responses to the recent Council “Statement on Same-sex Marriage”.
May I say that I was deeply disappointed by this Statement.While I, with Council, recognise that this is an “area of genuine and deep disagreement”, I felt saddened that Council did not feel able to issue a Statement which simply encouraged churches to live with a difference of opinion and diversity, as in other areas of Baptist life.
I would like to make three points which I feel are germane – and which, I am sure, have already been made by others. One is that our Declaration of Principle clearly states that “each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws”. Although I know that Council did look at the Declaration, the Statement gives the strong impression that Council only accepts it reluctantly and would have preferred the ability to enforce a code of practice on this matter. Indeed, the Statement’s strong initial declaration about “positively re-affirm(ing) and commend(ing) ... our Union’s historic Biblical understanding of marriage” again seems to indicate an innate desire to legislate doctrine upon the churches.
My second point concerns the twice-repeated urge in the final paragraph to demonstrate “mutual respect”. But what is being enjoined falls far short of this ideal: it is in fact a plea for the minority of churches to respect the majority opinion, with no corresponding challenge being given to those majority churches to try to understand the sincerely-held views of the few. Indeed, the final sentence seems to be little more than a last-ditch appeal to churches teetering on the brink of leaving the Union and reflects the weakness of Council’s position.
Finally, I feel that this Statement is disastrous from a pastoral point of view. It sends a very negative message to LGBT people and, indeed, to many young people in general who feel that the churches’ position on this matter is reactionary and incomprehensible. While I do recognise that, increasingly, there are differences between “Christian” values and those of wider society, this does not seem to be the appropriate point on which we should be “making a stand”.
As it happens, the Council Statement does not apply to the church I currently serve, as we are a joint URC/Baptist church whose building is held entirely under a URC Trust. Our freedom to hold Same-sex marriages is therefore governed by whatever decision is made at the URC General Assembly in July. Of course, the Ministerial Rules do apply to me; I am still upset that they were changed some years ago without consulting all Accredited Ministers and I regard the amendment issued at the 2014 Assembly as both grudging and incomplete.
To conclude, I feel that Council chose to take the path of safety rather than of radical understanding. While I think I can understand the reasons that lay behind this, my feeling is that in so doing it betrayed the fundamental Baptist ethos of liberty and firmly rejected the possibility that the Spirit might yet be opening new truth from God’s Holy Word.
With best wishes, Andrew Kleissner (Christ Church, Ipswich).
I understand that the Baptist Steering Group meets next week; and that it is open to receiving responses to the recent Council “Statement on Same-sex Marriage”.
May I say that I was deeply disappointed by this Statement.While I, with Council, recognise that this is an “area of genuine and deep disagreement”, I felt saddened that Council did not feel able to issue a Statement which simply encouraged churches to live with a difference of opinion and diversity, as in other areas of Baptist life.
I would like to make three points which I feel are germane – and which, I am sure, have already been made by others. One is that our Declaration of Principle clearly states that “each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws”. Although I know that Council did look at the Declaration, the Statement gives the strong impression that Council only accepts it reluctantly and would have preferred the ability to enforce a code of practice on this matter. Indeed, the Statement’s strong initial declaration about “positively re-affirm(ing) and commend(ing) ... our Union’s historic Biblical understanding of marriage” again seems to indicate an innate desire to legislate doctrine upon the churches.
My second point concerns the twice-repeated urge in the final paragraph to demonstrate “mutual respect”. But what is being enjoined falls far short of this ideal: it is in fact a plea for the minority of churches to respect the majority opinion, with no corresponding challenge being given to those majority churches to try to understand the sincerely-held views of the few. Indeed, the final sentence seems to be little more than a last-ditch appeal to churches teetering on the brink of leaving the Union and reflects the weakness of Council’s position.
Finally, I feel that this Statement is disastrous from a pastoral point of view. It sends a very negative message to LGBT people and, indeed, to many young people in general who feel that the churches’ position on this matter is reactionary and incomprehensible. While I do recognise that, increasingly, there are differences between “Christian” values and those of wider society, this does not seem to be the appropriate point on which we should be “making a stand”.
As it happens, the Council Statement does not apply to the church I currently serve, as we are a joint URC/Baptist church whose building is held entirely under a URC Trust. Our freedom to hold Same-sex marriages is therefore governed by whatever decision is made at the URC General Assembly in July. Of course, the Ministerial Rules do apply to me; I am still upset that they were changed some years ago without consulting all Accredited Ministers and I regard the amendment issued at the 2014 Assembly as both grudging and incomplete.
To conclude, I feel that Council chose to take the path of safety rather than of radical understanding. While I think I can understand the reasons that lay behind this, my feeling is that in so doing it betrayed the fundamental Baptist ethos of liberty and firmly rejected the possibility that the Spirit might yet be opening new truth from God’s Holy Word.
With best wishes, Andrew Kleissner (Christ Church, Ipswich).