A BUGB / BMS marriage?

So Tony Campolo says the division between BUGB and BMS is 'ridiculous' and so the call for BUGB and BMS to join together sounds again (as it has done a number of times recently) - I've heard this most often as BMS taking over BUGB. The view being that BMS are the cooler partner and more missional and BUGB is the outdated institution. Several points to this need to be made:

1. Tony Campolo is largely ignorant of British Baptist life and mission and he said as much in his address on the Saturday night.

2. There is a commitment from March BU Council to seriously explore possibilities, but will not be reporting anytime soon.

3. Let's not forget that BUGB is only England and a bit of Wales. BMS relate to both BUS and BUW.

4. My impression is I don't think BMS want to go there, or not quickly.

5. BMS are better at presenting themselves. The BUGB communications team are good, but the BMS are better. BMS video are always better. It was BMS that allowed people to give via mobile. The BMS presentation of accounts is just excellent. Unfortunately, overall BUGB just does not inspire in the ways BMS do. 

6. The partnership between BUGB and BMS is growing, and I think a lot of this is down to the BMS General Director (who, dare I say, inspires more warmth and more depth than a previous incumbant). I believe we will see more working together in the future. I think there is a shared commitment to that. But if there is to be any kind of marriage it will be a result of greater co-habitation.

7. BUGB is an ecclesial body, it may not always do this well, but it is a Union of churches, associations and colleges. BMS is a Baptist mission agency/organisation, and while it relates to churches, it does not have an ecclesiology. Their histories are very different. So a marriage is not immediately an easy thing to do, especially if theology and history matters.

8. A BUGB /BMS marriage does not solve issues of inclusivity - especially gender, race and age. In fact, despite what others are saying, this is something I believe BUGB has begun to make real progress on and must continue. My own fear is if power shifts to Associations, this will become less of a priority - note that the two most recent Association positions of Regional Minister Team Leader have been white males (why is this?)

9. As yet I have seen none of our best theological voices give it any real credence. I recognise that to a lot of people this doesn't mean anything and is probably just another reason why its a good idea. I would want to see any kind of marriage having a theological rationale and not just a percieved pragmatic one. This needs to go beyond 'we live in one world with one mission' ... on this basis we should become Roman Catholic.  

10. It is great to see BMS get more involved in mission within the UK. More of this is needed. I suggest we let the relationship grow without forcing an end-goal, in which married life may not be happy (I watch the film Blue Valentine tonight!)

11. I remain unconvinced this is prophetic answer many seem to think it is. In fact I would suggest that at this time this may well be a side-issue to more pressing questions.

Comments

[Jon Stannard]

Andy, I am not calling for marriage, and I've not heard anyone else call for it either? But I do believe greater collaboration, sharing resource, creativity and learning would be a real step in the right direction.

[Andy Goodliff]

I'm only being semi-serious using 'marriage', but a number of voices are saying why are there two and not one ... i'm with you on greater collaboration, etc and think this is already beginning to happen and will happen more. The post above is answering the calls to make BUGB and BMS, which seemed to be the tenor of Campolo's remarks as well as others.

[Rowena Wilding]

I seriously think this post could have stopped after point one. Why are we clapping and cheering the advice of a guy who has literally no idea what he's talking about, and absolutely slating the futures group who have worked long and hard on coming up with reasonable, workable solutions? If I'm honest, that was what disappointed me most about the entire weekend.

[Tim Presswood]

Ro - I'm not clapping or cheering Campollo. But I have said for many years that I believe the artificial distinction between 'home' and 'foreign' mission was anachronistic.

Andy - I am with you up to point 6. Point 7 becomes rather more contentious. I am not sure that BUGB is, or should be 'ecclesial.' Whilst we have a common commitment to congregational governance, that is about as far as our ecclesiology goes. The shape of our church has little in common with that of, say, Mutley. Both have arisen out of their unique contexts. BUGB is, at most, a flexible container for a wide variety of different ecclesiologies. BUGB has tried to be missional. BMS has tried to relate churches together.

Nor am I sure that I would agree with your description of this as a 'side-issue.' I completely agree that this is not the short-term answer to the financial crisis which we urgently need. However, the full integration of mission into the organisation which supports and unites the various voices within our denomination feels both prophetic and important.

Most of your other points are 'practical.' They will all need to be resolved and this will not happen quickly. So we need a two track process, one which allows BUGB to survive into the future, and another which actually addresses what we want that future to look like.

[Simon Woodman]

OK but here's the thing.

Tony Campolo didn't suggest a merger between BUGB and BMS. What he said was that 'the division you have between world mission and home mission is ... ridiculous', and theologically of course he is absolutely correct (am I crediting the old American 'stump preacher' with some theological insight? Yes I am. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed listening to him, and yes the stories are old, but they're good stories and they have the gospel in them. And he's a sharp cookie when it comes to sociological as well as theological insight).

In a post-Christendom age, the difference between what we do 'back home' (evangelising the lapsed Christians of Christendom) and what we do 'over there' (the mission to convert the heathen) is a redundant distinction, and our structures of 'world mission' and 'home mission' are a hangover from the age of imperial expansionism. I don't see any theological difference between the BMS employed pastor in Africa, and the BUGB accredited pastor in Bristol. I don't see any theological difference between the BMS missionary working with an NGO to develop healthcare in Nepal, and the BUGB recognised Parish Nurse church worker in London. We set aside people for ministry and mission, and there is no valid theological distinction between whether they exercise that ministry here or there. So, there is some sense in considering whether we might want to have a unified and coherent agency for the training and accreditation of those called to such ministries.

So, let's think about what implications this might have for us?

One unified appeal to the churches for 'mission and ministry' to encompass a) bursaries to support those in training, b)the stipends of those whose ministries need financial support (be it here or overseas), c) the support services to facilitate such ministries (HR, accreditiation, discipline, CPD etc).

Then, for other centralised functions that facilitate the union (regional staff, legal, ecumenical / national representation, communications, etc etc), we charge a membership fee related to a percentage of church income.

I don’t think this conversation is dead by a long way…

[Andy Goodliff]

Simon / Tim

Thanks for responses.

First, I hope you know that I am in complete agreement that there is no distinction between home and world mission. The Baptist Times report (I wasn't there to hear in person what Campolo said) says Campolo was talking BUGB/BMS, not home or world ... and the broader piece is that others are making the argument that BUGB/BMS should become one.

Second, the ecclesial question is for me a big one. I am committed to Associations and Union being ecclesial bodies of a kind - so would want to see how we make sure we don't lose that.

Third, if this goal is to become a reality, lets not force it through, but perhaps work towards it intentionally. It all feels a bit knee-jerk and I stand by point 4 above, I think BMS would need a lot of convincing. So Tim I'm in agreement this is about timing.

[Simon Woodman]

I've just checked the BT report here http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/186-assemblys-opportunity-to-question-futures-process- and they're wrong - what he said was what I quoted above (I wrote it down at the time). I'm sure many heard structural unification, but I think he was being more nuanced.

[Jon Stannard]

Simon, I agree. I've not heard one person call for a merger or a marriage? (Andy,can you point me to those that are?) But greater collaboration, working together, pooling resource, etc, yes please. I would like to see this conversation continued...

[Andy Goodliff]

Jon, see the link above to Stuart Murray-Williams contribution to Beyond400 and comments and also a number of voices at March's BU Council.

[Phil Hill]

Forgive me joining in from outside the friendship circle, but this is important for all of us. BMS has an historic relationship with three British Baptist Unions, not one - four if one includes the Irish Union. A theology of mission expressed in the relation between BMS and the Unions must include a commitment to enculturation and it denies that principle by merging BMS with only one of the national Unions. Further, the 'esse' of the church in our theology is in its local community not its national Unions.The ecclesial justification for the BMS is as an agent of the church, which means the local church, therefore it should retain a direct relationship and not become a department of a Union. Finally, the creative possibilities are greater of two organisations remaining free but in symbiosis than of them becoming one in the search for organisational tidiness.

[ian tutton]

Could of course abolish BUGB and BMS, and create one body with two components - one for raising money and one for giving it away - with nobody on both...

[Paul Holmes]

I realise this side-tracks the thread but can I outwardly express my inward groan whenever Assembly chooses to mainstage names - like Tony Campolo? Is it really the case that we cannot "drink from our own wells"? Won't we reflect with those whose thinking and theologising is done with "feet on (our) ground"? Are we unable to identify or listen to voices we surely have within our BUGB churches/BMS? Can we not hear our own "prophets", thinkers, dreamers ... ? Don't we need to deliberate with them at this time of times in the life of BUGB? Apols for the liberation theology titles but Assembly needs some liberation.