​It strikes me that a good deal of the opposition to SSM in the church is, in fact, not about the status of marriage at all. It is more due to the fact that many have, up until now, only reluctantly / unwillingly acknowledged being gay as a legitimate status. The issue of marriage forces one to realise that they are not actually convinced that it is ok to be gay. That up until now it has been, for many, an abstract concept that one could remain unconvinced about but quiet. However, it is now no longer possible to keep the issue as an academic debate or grey area, marriage requires the active involvement of the church to become complicit in the mortal sin of the homosexual, not only that, but to declare the love of God over them and their union.
From a neutral perspective one could presume that the church would be a key supporter of SSM. What could be more natural than for two people in love to stand before their friends and their maker to declare that they are together and committed to live life in union - or marriage as we call it. It would seem odd to be able to take a moral stance against the more easy and wild lifestyles of some gay men and yet not offer any monogamous or committed alternative unless of course, what you really think is that this is all a bit of a nuisance and people should not be gay at all. Until now this has, of course, been somewhat hidden by the existence of Civil Partnerships, an attempt by the secular world to provide an expression of love and commitment where the church has failed.
I realise that I will, no doubt be challenged that this is not because we don’t like gays (some of my best friends are gay). It’s just that marriage is more than just a declaration of love, it’s for families. Well, that argument sucks and has already been answered. It is particularly poisonous to those heterosexual couples who enter into marriage knowing they cannot, by choice or condition, have children. The other classic is of course that biblical marriage is for a man and a woman, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Well as far as I can see, the Bible doesn’t have direct answers to many of our modern questions, what of corporate banking, legal tax management (as opposed to evasion), modern medicine, saving money for a rainy day, the LHC firing neutrons at the speed of light. What a great age we live in when we are having to ask new questions of God. In terms of homosexuality we are asking new questions because previously the culture the scriptures were written in would demand the death, drugging or banishment of a homosexual, the love that dare not speak its name, does anyone really want to go back there? Oh, and before the ‘love the sinner hate the sin’ brigade begin to circle, if you have genuinely found a way of separating someone from their inherent sexual desires, then let me know, I know a couple of randy straight teenagers that desperately need your help.
If we have truly managed to come to accept that some people are just gay (deal with it) and that they can be gay and Christian, still with me? and that many, not all, people desire companionship and committed relationship… Then the offer of recognising a committed relationship is just right isn’t it? I realise some are still thinking:
‘What, now they want marriage? Is it not enough that we have stopped stoning them? Just slow down, we need to think’.
Well no. Being gay is not a lifestyle, no, they shouldn’t be grateful we no longer condemn them and it is no longer viable to ‘tolerate it’. You can no longer expect ‘Christian gays’ to stay single and celibate for the rest of their lives, to hide in the shadows feeling condemned by both their own feelings and those that should love them most. If God loves someone, you love them, that is our call. God loves people and God loves love and loves commitment. Marriage is the most Godly way I know to show someone you love them. Isn’t that enough?

Recently, I received an email from a Christian puppeteer, juggler and children's entertainer from the US who will be staying over in our city during a mission trip in October. He was looking for a church where he could offer to run a children's and family evangelistic event and contacted us via our church website. I replied to him saying we were very interested and he came back to me wanting to check something out before agreeing to come.

He'd noticed that "we welcome people of every age, culture background and sexuality" and wanted to check out whether we "allow practicing homosexuals to serve in leadership positions of the church?" He went on to say, "I realize the difference between treating the homosexual with love, dignity, honor and respect [I heartily agree], vs. accepting or endorsing the homosexual lifestyle [I completely disagree]."

My reply to him (with his name removed) is below. I share this partly because it gives something of my church's journey on this issue over the last few years. But also, I really don't believe God wants his church to tear itself apart over this issue. I think it was Bishop Tom Wright who said: "The Church is very good at choosing to fight to the death in the wrong field". Anyway, here it is.

"Dear XXXX,

Thanks once again for your prompt (and lengthy!) reply.

However, I have to say, I'm disappointed that from your email, it seems as though our attitude to homosexuality is the one issue that would stop you being able to be involved in our "Bring a friend" outreach service. We could be a church which refuses to accept any women in positions of authority: would that be a barrier to your involvement? Or what about if we held an extreme reformed theology (as a church a couple of miles from us does) which means that they have a very narrow view of who the elect is and who can therefore be saved: would this be a non-negotiable?

Let me tell you a little about our journey on this issue. As a church, we have debated this issue over a number of years. In our deliberations, I referred to a number of gay Christians friends of mine, who for years (or even decades) tried to deny their own sexuality, and suffered low self-esteem, depression and great loneliness in the process. Each of them finally reached the point of saying: "How can a God whose essence is love have created me to be someone who is detested by him?" We also noted that on certain issues, much of the worldwide Church has recognised that some of the Bible's teaching was for a particular time and culture. So despite 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and other passages, many churches have women in positions of authority. Similarly, despite Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22 and other passages, the Church has universally rejected slavery. We also recognised that much of the Church has for many decades demonised and vilified gay people and any message of God's love has been lost.

Before we voted in a church meeting, it became clear that there was still some diversity of opinion amongst our membership on this issue, but we decided to hold together in love despite these differences, and to recognise that the overarching essence of God's character is love. We therefore voted that if someone in a same-sex relationship wanted to be baptised and become a church member, we would simply use the pastoral system which we already have, in which a person is visited by two existing members in order to learn about their life and faith journey. After the visitors report back to a church meeting, the person can then be approved and welcomed into membership.

In reading your email, my biggest disappointment is not that we disagree on this issue of sexuality, as sometimes Christians do have different opinions on a variety of subjects. My real disappointment is that, because you hold a different viewpoint on this, that you are unwilling to offer your skills to help us in simply sharing the gospel with people in our local community. My final thought on this is: if Jesus wanted the issue of sexual orientation to be the "dealbreaker" over which the church should be prepared fight to the death, why did he not make a single statement on it during his whole ministry?

I pray that whichever churches you do work with are blessed by your ministry."

Human sexuality and the Church

The Baptist Union Declaration of Principle states:

1. That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.
2. That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who ‘died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day’.
3. That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world.

It seems clear to me that the one basis for our faith is Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.

As it appears that our Baptist forbears understood, truth is not a creed or doctrine but a person - specifically the revelation of God’s truth, way and life in Jesus Christ.
Having received forgiveness and entered into a relationship with Christ crucified and resurrected, through the waters of baptism, every disciple bears witness to the life of Christ. This is Christ in us and we in Christ - resurrection life - life in the Spirit - Kingdom life - life in all the fullness that God intended for us.

Brian McLaren’s thoughts and reflections may help us in our debate about human sexuality. In his book, A New Kind of Christianity (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2010), McLaren suggests that parts of the conservative Christian churchapproach the biblical text as if it were an annotated code [legal code or constitutional document] instead of what it actually is: a portable library of poems, prophecies, histories, fables, parables, letters, sagely sayings, quarrels, and so on.’ (103) We would be helped if we recognised the Bible as a library of culture and community - the culture and community of a people who trace themselves back to Moses and Abraham. Unlike a constitution we do not expect complete internal consistency in the Bible; rather we expect to find vigorous internal debate around key questions that were important within the theological culture in which it was produced. (107)

When we recognise that this is the nature of the Bible, we are placed in the text, not under or over it, in the conversation, in the story, in the current and flow, in the predicament, in the Spirit, in the community of people who keep bumping into the living God ... loving God, betraying God, losing God and being found again by God. (125)

As Baptists, as for all Christians the Bible’s highest value is in revealing Jesus, who gives us the highest, deepest and most mature view of the character of the living God (Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-4; John 1:1-5).

But we might ask: Is our picture of Jesus simply the one with which feel most comfortable?
The Book of Revelation celebrates not the love of power but the power of love. The Jesus, who is Lord in Revelation 19 is the alternative to the empires of this world in which so many of earth’s religions live. Sadly the desire for a military Messiah remains in many western evangelical circles.

Jesus promises those who ‘eat his flesh and drink his blood’ (take his life into them) the life of the ages (eternal life), abundant life, which sparkles in new significance - life that transcends life in the present age. (173)

Now to think about same sex partnerships and ‘marriage’. While I do not see same sex partnerships in terms of marriage as defined in Genesis 2 and Matthew 19, I find McLaren’s thoughts both challenging and helpful in my understanding of human sexual relationships.
In discussing this subject McLaren introduces us to‘fundasexuality’ rooted not in faith but in fear - of new ideas, people who are different, fear of criticism or rejection by its own community, or fear of God’s wrath on them if they do not conform fully to and enforce the teachings and interpretations of their popular leaders. He suggests that it is a kind of hetero-phobia: the fear of people who are different. It comes in many forms - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or even atheist. Something or someone is identified as the ‘devil’ - a threat, something for the majority to be against. (235) For fundasexuality it is lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual people who are the target.

McLaren points out that there are a variety of ‘marriage’ relationships in Scripture such as polygamy allowed and even encouraged. He suggests that we might consider marriage in the same way as Sabbath, as in Jesus’ words: ‘the Sabbath was made for human beings not human beings for the Sabbath.’ This might suggest that marriage is similarly created to help humans in our sexual relationships, even gay humans. (237)

McLaren comes back to a biblical interpretation which is Jesus focused rather than constitutional, forensic and legalistic. So if Jesus is the climax of a dynamic biblical narrative and the supreme revelation of God, then Jesus’ treatment of the marginalised and the stigmatised requires us to question our approach. (241)

McLaren challenges us to see that ‘[as] a change-averse community, the Church sees the increasing acceptance of gay people as yet another slide down the slippery slope towards moral relativism and decay. [But] as a change-catalytic community, the Church sees this increasing acceptance as yet another step up in removing the old dividing walls of Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female, and so on.’ (242)
McLaren then presents his readers with a most significant pointer for our debate. He recalls that as the Gospel goes out into the Gentile world (Acts 8) the first conversion is of the Ethiopian eunuch, who is baptised by Phillip. We tend to hear this as a joyful conversion story, but maybe we need to read it in the context of the community of the early church. We need to stop and consider - this man is an Ethiopian, that is a Gentile of a different ethnic group, and also he has been castrated, both of which were barriers to acceptance into Jewish Temple worship.

So now we listen to his question: ‘What is to prevent me from being baptised?’ - well, as far as becoming a Jewish proselyte is concerned, these two for a start! But Phillip takes this audacious action and baptises him. This man may well have been humiliated and rejected in Jerusalem, but in Christian baptism is accepted. How often we miss what is staring us in the face!! (242-7)

One further reflection, Stephen J. Patterson (the George H. Atkinson Chair of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University, who addresses this question about eunuchs in the Bible in his Biblical Views column Punch Thy Neighbor in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review) draws our attention to Matthew 19:12, where Jesus refers to some who are eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. Patterson suggests that the phallus is a symbol of male dominance and power in the Graeco-Roman empires, and its removal is a statement of the Jesus-centred, love-focused, self-sacrificing Kingdom opposed to the empires of the world.

In our sexually charged and temptation filled society, McLaren ponders whether the gay community’s ‘coming out of the closet’ will help us all to address our sexuality. ‘... the longer we hide from the truth of our sexuality - in all its beauty and agony, in all its passion and pain, in all its simplicity and complexity - the sicker we will be, as religious communities, as cultures, and as a global society.’ (253)

Can we accept a variety of committed sexual relationships:lesbian, gay, transgendered, bisexual, and heterosexual in the same way as Phillip did when he baptised the Ethiopian eunuch?

I believe that this discussion should prayerfully and lovinglycontinue in our Baptist family.

John Weaver is a former President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, and was Principal of South Wales Baptist College until his retirement in 2011. He specialises in Practical Theology.

I feel the need to say something quite direct and perhaps unpopular. It seems to me that this whole Gay/ Lesbian/ SSM question is actually a very simple issue. It is a basic issue of human rights!
People don’t choose their sexuality. No matter the factors involved in creating our sexuality (genetic, social, etc) we are who we are. We can’t change it. And given that that is so, the question of people’s “opinions” about our sexuality falls into the category of total and utter irrelevance! The idea that our approach to sexuality it is a “hermeneutical” question (a word invented by theologs and unknown to 99.999% of the population!!!) is just nonsense. Sexuality, our experience of it and our response to it is a fundamental building block of life from which derives a simple matter of human rights: is this or that person is to be accorded full status and rights as a human being – or are they to be oppressed and denied their rights on the basis of the sexual bias of those who find their sexuality distasteful? Worse still, are they to be denied and rejected in the name of God?
As Baptists we should be leading the way in insisting on equal rights for all people, rather than grubbing around in the Bible seeking out verses that will support what is simply our innate and reptilian prejudices against homosexuals. (To explain, it is, I think, quite natural - and almost necessary for the continuation of the species - that heterosexuality will carry some inbuilt bias against homosexuality, but as humans we have both brains and hearts to moderate and control this bias and set an example to others).
I am tired of hearing about the need to be “pastorally sensitive” towards people who “struggle” with (other people’s!) homosexuality. OK we should we gentle, but we should be firm and unyielding in teaching people that this is not a choice that homosexual people have made but rather it is the way that (if you want to put it this way) “God has made them”.
The real and often unaddressed question is – what about the people who are homosexual, whose life is devastated at its very core by the denial by others of their sexual orientation: people pushed into self-doubt, depression and even suicide by the rejection of others in the name of God and righteousness?
Who cares what your “opinion” is on this matter? Who says you even have a right to an “opinion”. Do you have a right to opinions that the earth is flat or that black people are sub-human or that disabled people are morons? We need to get the homosexual “debate” onto the same level. It doesn’t matter what you think – you just need to catch up with reality and accept the fact (!!!) that a person’s sexuality is how it is and that your only proper and Christian response to it is to affirm them and respect them as you would/should anyone else. Their rights in life (such as SSM) must be exactly the same as any other person’s rights.
Of course, a major problem in achieving this in the Baptist community is another “elephant in the church”: namely our traditional approach to scripture as “the Word of God” by which we apparently need to justify every action we take. Where do we get that idea? Did Jesus say that? Jesus said that he would send the Spirit of Reality to lead us into all reality precisely because there were things he wanted to tell us humans that we couldn’t swallow in his day. We will never find the “word of God” simply in the pages of scripture. The Spirit also works in the world at large (over whose chaos she originally hovered in the creation story). It is the Spirit who has led the way in human rights and who informs much of the freedom we enjoy today. The attempt to equate the contemporary witness of the Spirit with that of two to three thousand years ago may be “interesting” but it is not a task which should allow us to ignore or worse still be complicit in the denial of equal rights to all people today.

In this paper (downloadable in full below), Sean Winter observes that 'whatever convictions we hold about what biblical interpretation ought to be, in empirical terms we ought to face up to the fact that all interpretation generates disagreement. Therefore, our obedient commitment to the human work of “churchly biblical interpretation” leads to the inevitable consequence that we will disagree with each about what the biblical texts mean. This state of affairs then raises an important theoretical question: how do we understand interpretative diversity in theological perspective in our tradition?'

He says that 'covenant fellowship includes engagement with scripture because scripture is the means by which that fellowship is initiated and sustained [and] that the appropriate word for that engagement is interpretation.'

This means that 'biblical interpretation should be viewed as “the church’s active, diverse and ongoing engagement with the biblical texts” and that a genuinely Baptist account of the hermeneutical task will “permit interpretive diversity and disagreement as a hallmark of the church’s life and not insist on particular interpretive decisions as the necessary hallmark of being ‘biblical.’”

'In situations of disagreement within the Christian community, there is often the search for a solution via adjudication. Both parties look for, or more commonly they believe themselves to be, a person or persons who have sufficient authority to be able to resolve disputes and establish clear boundaries. This is as true in the
interpretative task as it is in other aspects of church life. In structural terms, the need for adjudication reflects a model of church in which some—usually a few—are invested with or claim the relevant authority by virtue of their title or role or education or gifts: the “government church” [model].'

'When interpretative disagreement is on the surface of our church life and when pressures within and without the church call for definitive statements and clear positions, the temptation can seem to be overwhelming. And yet an understanding of the church as a community of friendship provides us with resources for resisting this
solution to the conflict that arises from their diversity. '

'Central to the Baptist vision is the idea that the identity, belief, and practices of the church are not determined by these forms of authority or by the interpretative decisions that are reached by appeal to them, but they are instead the result of the participation of a covenanted people into the life of God. Friendship is a form of relationship that allows space for all this because as we learn to become friends with one another, we are, in fact, responding to God, who in Jesus Christ calls us God’s friends.'

'What does this look like in practice? Well, perhaps if Baptists can learn to read as friends, we will do what friends often do—think for example of members of a book group or a dinner party conversation discussing a recent novel. We will find ways of sharing our views and interpretations honestly and openly, of listening to alternative views and interpretations, of allowing the richness of the conversation to take us back to the text with new eyes, and of agreeing to disagree, and all this without threatening the free yet committed relationship that friends share.'

However, 'conversation, thus understood, is not the exchanging of views or interpretations. It is the encounter with difference in which I allow for the possibility that I might be wrong and might have to change my views on the truth, or my interpretation of the text. As friends converse we discover “the other as other, the different as different” and therefore “the different as possible.”'

'To speak of conversation and argument in this way is, I propose, to speak of the requirement to give testimony. A person who says “this is what scripture means” to another is, from this perspective, saying neither “agree with my interpretation or we must break relationship” nor “this is what I think the text means but I am telling you for information only.” To bear witness is to seek to persuade the other that my witness is true, which is another way of
saying that exegesis is argument, that to interpret is to make a claim and that every act of interpretation is in some sense an act of proclamation.'

'Of course, understanding our relationship with one another in this way will make some feel vulnerable, while others will exploit their power in order to take advantage of the situation. The fact that rhetoric often takes unpalatable forms does not mean that we can escape the reality of our situation. For Baptist communities, it is vital to recognize that it is the persuasive testimony of scripture that calls the church into being. To bear witness to one another fully, truly, and openly is a risky strategy. However, far from being a threat to the unity and identity of the church, this mutual witness is constitutive of its identity, for in the work of interpretation we play
our part in the covenantal drama of God’s saving action in Jesus Christ.'

'In sum, the church’s existence depends on the covenantal action of God who calls this community into existence and whose love sustains the covenantal relationships within the community. To speak this way of the church is to speak of it as a community of friends and thus as a place where diversity, disagreement, and even conflict are inevitable, but not ultimately destructive. Scripture’s authority within this community is established by virtue of its role within God’s covenant-making relationship with us. Thus, our diversity, disagreement, and even conflict over the meaning of scripture are inevitable, but not ultimately destructive. Although the church is often tempted to seek definitive adjudication of competing interpretations, this is a temptation that ought to be resisted.'

'Although the conflict of interpretations can be avoided by an appeal to the all-pervading importance of good relationships, the inevitable downplaying of the need for the church to search the scriptures is too high a price to pay.'

'When we read, interpret, talk, and argue about what the Bible means, we are actually engaging in the process of conversation and argument that should, when rightly understood, hold the church together. For as long as we are responding to these texts, we are responding to the God who speaks through them. There is always the need for vigilance, lest scripture is elevated or demoted to a place that distorts its overall role within the divine economy. But as we read in the community of friends, we do well to heed the imperatives to “be attentive, be intelligent, be responsible, be loving, and, if necessary, change.”

Originally published in The ‘plainly revealed’ Word of God: Baptist Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice, ed. Helen Dare and Simon P. Woodman, (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 2011).

Instead of our normal Thursday night down the Yard this week, Luke and I, together with others from Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, went along to the Copper Box in the Olympic park. We were a small group in a nearly-6000 strong turnout for the London Citizens Mayoral Assembly. The two main runners in the London Mayoral race were there; Zac Goldsmith (Conservative) and Sadiq Khan (Labour). This gathering was the culmination of a 6 month process of listening, discerning, and now finally challenging some of those who hold the power to make a difference in the housing crisis that London is facing right now. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a social cleansing happening in our capital city. The two candidates responded differently to the requests made by Citizens UK: the Conservative candidate, although agreeing to some of what the delegates were asking, was reluctant to make promises; whereas the Labour candidate argued that the manifesto did not go far enough. However both candidates agreed to meet regularly with London Citizens if they were elected. Even Goldsmith could see the value of talking with those he was opposed to, including and listening to the voice from the margins. Further to this, Khan was not demanding the ceasing of outside investments - only that priority be given rightly to those who already belong to the city, that communities should become economically mixed rather than polarised. It was an exciting and satisfying evening, and felt like a great victory for the London Citizens delegates. Although now is when the hard work starts, to keep those who hold power accountable to their principles and promises.

The reason Luke and I were there? Because these are issues of equality and inclusion, values at the heart of the Soho Gathering. We will choose to stand with those who are marginalised and kept down by those who have power and abuse it. Power is always a dangerous thing to hold, psychologically it can cause the wielder to lose empathy and to disassociate themselves from those they see themselves as holding power over. This is one of the reasons why inequality happens, it is why atrocities take place, and it is why we can see another human being as ‘other’ and treat them as such.

Let’s move on to Friday afternoon, and Luke and I are now meeting at Waterloo station to go to a conversation with Stonewall about the place we find ourselves in, within the Baptist Union. We met with Ruth Hunt, and part of the team that is engaging faith communities around issues of equality and inclusion. Luke and I spoke about our experience as Baptists, what the union means to us, and how our structures worked.

I explained that I fell in love with the principles of the Baptist Union whilst discerning my call to ministry, realising that I was a Baptist by conviction, rather than a Methodist, Anglican, Independent Congregationalist or whatever. I am a Baptist because we trust God to move in people’s lives, because we trust people to respond to Jesus through baptism, because we don’t need to make promises on anyone’s behalf. I am a Baptist because we believe that we are all called to live a Christ-like life, sharing the gospel through the world as we go, and because we trust the local congregation to discern the mind of Christ, that it is as we gather together that Christ is present. Together we are stronger even through our diversity. For me it has always been our diversity that I have believed to be one of our greatest strengths. At one level the idea of living in such tension frightens me, rubbing alongside those who see things differently and being ok with that. But what excites me is that everyone has the right to belong, to pick up their cross daily, and that we don’t have a pope or a bishop or a book of prayer to tell us how to do things, rather we listen to each other and hear God together. This is the union I fell in love with.

Declaration of Principle
The Basis of the Baptist Union is:
1. That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.
2. That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day'.
3. That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelisation of the world.

Of course there is a cost, a cost I have willingly if at times painfully shouldered; journeys to and from college were frequently filled with conversations where I would have to defend my call to ministry to two men who clearly disagreed, because inclusion means inclusion even with those who are diametrically opposed to me. Anyone who knows what it is to have a calling will recognise this, and those of you out there who feel called to positions will know that this is about more than what ‘I do’, it is closer to what ‘I am’. To work alongside who deny the existence of that part of me is painful.
But now my Union doesn’t feel safe. There are those who want to punish and abuse individuals and churches for the ‘liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws’ that the Union gives us in the first place.

We shared with Ruth from Stonewall about the declaration the Union made two years ago, and how it was in-keeping with our Baptist way of being church, and about the councils recent ‘amendment’ to that statement. As we chatted and it became clear that this isn’t really about Same Sex Marriage, that this is about changing our identity as Baptists. What some in our union are trying to do is to fundamentally change the way we as Baptist churches relate and hear God. I reflected back on what had happened Thursday night, with nearly 6000 people standing up to the powers and saying that the way the poor and the foreign and the different have been shoved out to the margins isn’t good enough, because we are all equal and we all have a voice.

I think about those who would like to see me taken off the list and my church kicked out of the Union, and this is what I have to say:
Inviting people to Christ’s table does not mean that I agree with what you say and what you do, but it means I am as broken as you are. I would never want you who disagree with me, even though your views are abhorrent to me, to leave our Union. But I would also never want to force you to follow God the way I do, or to accept me as your minister, or to bless the beautiful loving relationships that to me clearly and manifestly demonstrate the love of Christ. Because unity does not mean uniformity. I can say I’m disappointed with you for trying to force me to conform to the way you think and the way you act, I get to be angry and disturbed and ashamed that I see you hurting and damaging people, and pushing people from Christ’s love. However, even in all of this, I don’t get to say, and I will not say, you aren’t my brothers and sisters in Christ, you aren’t my brothers and sisters in the Baptist Union.
I do not get to say we aren’t family anymore, and according to our Baptists Principles neither do you.

Dawn

Read more at: https://sohogathering.org

In his paper, 'In Appreciation of “Reluctant” Prophets' William John Lyons from the University of Bristol reflects on the way Baptists read the Bible. He suggests that our practice of community discernment is badly under-used when it comes to hearing from scripture, and that we ignore our Baptist 'experts' on the Bible at our peril.

He points to 'the deep wells of creativity, the almost-electric vitality, and the steadfast and hopeful conviction' and suggests that 'to be a Baptist is at its very best to partake in and of one of the most radical, Christo-centric, counter-cultural, communally satisfying, and life-giving segments of the Christian tradition.'

Against this, however, he notes that 'the flip side of Baptists being viewed as people of promise is what I can only see as the unavoidable conclusion that they have all too often fallen short of their potential and have all too often remained a people of unfulfilled promise.' Further, he observes that 'few Baptist
churches seem to me to inhabit the radical and prophetic space that their own language about themselves and especially about their use of scripture clearly implies that they should.' Indeed, 'Baptist churchmen and women as I have typically encountered them are too often little more than members of pan-evangelical churches'.

He continues, 'When one also considers the role that scripture played in discussions about women in ministry in the 1920s—virtually none—for example, or the irony of the Baptist World Alliance having commissions on numerous and diverse theological and ethical topics, but none dealing with scripture itself, or the damage caused by the apparent absence of an open debate about human sexuality—so often, as we know, a hermeneutical issue rather than an ethical one—within contemporary Baptist settings, the problem seems to be one that is present at every level of the Baptist world. Is it really the case that scripture within Baptist churches as we know them functions as the church’s central witness to its Lord, being interpreted by those who stand among the body of believers and then the truth of the matter being weighed by the many of the community, or is it actually the case that scripture is often simply being silenced or replaced rather than heard?'

He concludes by suggesting that 'the time for reticence is long past. Instead, it is time for these prophets to speak loudly and openly, and it is time for the Baptist churches to listen and to weigh their words. It is time for the Baptist tradition to look once again at its riches and to ask if the churches that claim that designation are really all that they are able to be.'

Download the full article below.

Originally published in The ‘plainly revealed’ Word of God: Baptist Hermeneutics in Theory and Practice, ed. Helen Dare and Simon P. Woodman, (Macon GA: Mercer University Press, 2011).