Reflections on the Council of the BUGB's New Statement on Same Sex Marriage

Preamble

Last week I posted that Council were to meet and part of their agenda was to reflect again on same sex marriage. Following their meeting they have issued a new statement, which appeared on Monday morning. (A copy was emailed to ministers on Friday afternoon).

I am part of a Baptist church that is not planning to register as a place where same sex marriages can be held.

As a minister I do not feel at the moment in a position where I could conduct a same sex marriage.

I do though have good friends who take a position of wanting to affirm same sex marriage in the church. I would happily be a member of any of their churches and would happily share in ministry with them. 

I continue to be open to engage theologically, biblically and pastorally around this issue. In my mind this is not a settled issue.

I am not troubled that other churches and other ministers might come to a place of affirming and celebrating same sex marriage. 

I recognise that as Christians we will come to different positions, and that every view on homosexuality - those that affirm and those that are against - have strengths and weaknesses. 

In the words of one friend, we always read the Bible 'in the fray and on the way', in fact, I suggest our relationship with God is always one in the fray and on the way. As American Baptists Curtis Freeman and Steven Harmon have argued recently, Baptists are a pilgrim people, both historically and theologically. 

Our engagement as a Union on the question of homosexuality I think has been a too narrow one. We have not even begun to engage with the conversation that is taking place biblically and theologically amongst theologians and biblical scholars. We have not adequately considered the biblical and theological arguments of those who have come to affirm LBGT relationships, which while they may not convince all, do demonstrate that this again is not a settled issue.

With this preamble in view, I am disappointed by the statement the Baptist Union Council agreed last week. On first reading I didn't think it was too bad, further readings worry me more. On the plus side it has not overturned the 2014 statement and there are some gaps in the new statement that give space for churches to continue to dissent from what is claimed is the Union's view. (For my reflections on 2014 statement see here).

In the accompanying letter to the statement, the Union's General Secretary Lynn Green mentions that 'we identified from the outset that our aim was to reach a settled place on this issue.' First of all I'm not sure who the 'we' refers to - the Council, the Steering Group, the Trustees? Second, I am unconvinced that we can reach a settled view on same sex relationships. Council making a statement does not mean we have reached a settled view. (While we have adopted the name Baptists Together, I am of the view that the changes to the Union, implemented in 2012, have made us more fragmentary.) I would prefer that we see this as an ongoing conversation and the most recent statement is where the Council discerns we are currently.

Churches and individuals have been invited to contribute to the Union's attempt to reach a settled place on this issue via an email address that is called 'talkingtogether' -  how can we be talking together, when those who might contribute a view by email are not part of the talking together - there is no opportunity to hear what others have said. The Council are talking together but that is not the same as the Union. While the Union held one (good) session at the 2013 Assembly, this has not be repeated. In the five years I have been part of my Association at no point have we 'talked together' about homosexuality.

I am troubled that we can have 'profound disagreement' over other issues - women in ministry, the use of violence, what constitutes Christian economics, etc - and yet we make no statement that seeks to ask churches to refrain from not allowing women to preach or lead. We live with the difference, even though I am more troubled and more angered by those that seek to deny women as ministers of the gospel. Why must the profound disagreement over the issue of same sex marriage require us to make a statement that 'humbly urges churches to refrain' from conducting marriages of this kind?

Lynn speaks of the 'way we discern' as being as important as 'what we discern.' I think the way we discern can be done better. The way we discern at the moment is churches or individuals are encouraged to make their views known and then Council discerns. I would like to see an improvement in the way we discern:

    1. Recover the practice of Listening Days. Twice during the 1990s the General and Deputy Secretary toured the Associations, holding listening days about the future of the Union.

    2. For Associations to take much more seriously gathering together for discernment. Again in many cases the view of an Association is not a view of the churches that belong to it, but the Trustees/Council.

   3. See Assembly as a place of discernment that complements the work of the Council. This of course is very difficult with the current one day Assembly format (which will continue until 2017).

Reflections on the Statement

'The Union's historic Biblical understanding of marriage' I guess is reflected in the ministerial rules, rather than any other kind of historic statement made by Council or Assembly. Has the Union ever reflected on a theology of marriage? I am equally troubled by the language of 'Biblical', because we use it as trump card. The use of 'biblical' reflects a conservative evangelical doctrine of Scripture that claims the text has one meaning and we can know that one meaning. (John Colwell's chapter on scripture in Promise and Presence is one example that challenges this view). Marriage in the Bible is not the same as we understand Christian marriage in 21st Century.

It is good to see that the Declaration of Principle comes first in the statement. The statements refers to 'the potential for some diversity in pastoral and missional practice'. Does this mean there is room for diversity also in theology, of which I am sure there is lots. The Declaration of Principle emerged out of the two Baptist streams - Calvinist and Arminian - joining together to form the Union without their convictions about the gospel being required to change. Theologically the Union has never been uniform, outside of a shared conviction of being trinitarian. 

The second part of the statement refers to mission and the need for churches to engage in mission with imagination and compassion. Does that give space for churches to engage with the LBGT community in different ways. I suggest there is so room here.

The final part of the statement is the more contentious bit. The first paragraph is helpful - it acknowledges genuine and deep disagreement and there is tension around the fact some churches are registering their buildings for same sex marriage. It then adds the need for God's grace to enable us to walk together. All good.

The final paragraph sets out how this should be outworked. The Council first asks that 'we humbly urge churches who are considering conducting same-sex marriages to refrain from doing so out of mutual respect.' I'm not sure that this follows from the previous paragraphs around freedom and mission. It seeks to stop churches exercising their freedom. The key words are 'mutual respect.' It secondly asks that 'we also humbly urge all churches to remain committed to our Union out of mutual respect.' This second sentence appears to give room for churches to dissent from the Council's view and asks other churches and/or Associations to remain committed to the Union, where this might take place. (Of course it might also be read that those who might affirm LBGT relationships are being asked not to leave the Union.) Again the basis is 'mutual respect.' The strength of the statement and its interpretation will be to hold these two sentences together. 

The statement does leave a lot of questions unanswered. If a church does decide to go forward and conduct same-sex marriages, what consequences will there be? The statement gives more power to those churches and associations that are seeking to discipline and remove said churches from relationship. (I don't think it is unfair to say that is what they were pushing for.) Here we will have to see whether they heed the call to remain committed to the Union out of 'mutual respect'.

To remove a church from an Association does not mean removal from the Union and so it may create the need for a new non-geographical association (although that would need Council and Assembly approval) or to see those churches joining another Association. None of this could happen with a real possibility of churches leaving the Union. There is also the question on what basis are churches members of associations, is it on the basis of the Declaration of Principle, which it is does not make it entirely straight forward for Associations to override the autonomy of a church meeting. We will have to wait and see how this plays out, but the issue is definitely not settled.

Comments

[Annie Weatherly-Barton]

A very good piece indeed Andy. I agree with you. It puts into writing clearly what concerns many of us. Have a look at the conversation on Baptist Collaboration. Some people feel threatened whilst others thing there is no threat just a perceived threat. It seems that many feel there is a real difference between what was set out at the Congress and what is being said now. Perhaps you could help people to fully understand?

Whilst we set off on track about SSM what about how we treat or welcome - or not welcome - Gay people? Should that not be part of this discussion? Not in "principle" terms but in terms of loving and accepting people?

It has been stated that all ministers received this report on Friday but many did not. There was also a statement that everyone minister was invited to take part in the discussion about SSM. Many had not received any notification.

Thank you very very much for your reflections which are thought-provoking, sensitive and caring.

Every Blessing
Annie

[Phil Jump]

Hi Andy - thanks for a thoughtful piece with much helpful reflection. I do though sense a bit of "sleight of hand" - A "settled place" is not necessarily a "settled view" which you suddenly switch to in order to make your point - it can simply mean being at ease with our differences. Nor need it mean that the "issue" is settled. I sensed we were in a "settled place" when we had a helpful, honest and open discussion on what is a missional and pastoral response to people of differing and diverse sexuality and gender identity at our Assembly some years ago. This neither revealed a settled view or settled the issue, but I sense we were in a "settled place." Since then our discussions have been "unsettled" by the imposition of a Marriage Act which in my view (and irrespective of any view on same-sex partnership) was imposed by our Government with undue and unseemly haste. Because of this. our discussions have become far more reactive, and shaped by external agendas. I have had conversations with a number of friends and contacts who are of same-sex orientation, who themselves are not happy with the marriage act - some because they feel it devalues their previously established civil partnership. Rightly or wrongly, their cause over recent years has been "glad to be different" and they don't want to be (in their words) "the same as heterosexuals". It is no less narrow to assume that a judgement on gay marriage is a universal judgement on gay relationships, as some seem to claim. I hope we can continue the discussions that have been ongoing for some years with, as you rightly point out, the time and space to consider the breadth and richness of diverse theological and Biblical views (which I do not agree needs always to imply a particular conservative evangelical perspective.) I would agree that we need to "wait and see how this plays out" but I am not convinced that a settled place needs to be the same as a settled view or an end to discussion - rather a reclaiming of wholesome process of listening and discussion, freed from the imposition of Government consultation deadlines and legislative procedures.

[Mark Burleigh]

I was deeply saddened by the statement and sad to be associated with it. Why is this issue such a touchstone of fellowship between our churches? The Council statement seems to me to be to be flawed by an inherent contradiction between, "each church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His Laws" on the one hand and "we humbly urge churches who are considering conducting same-sex marriages to refrain from doing so" on the other.
Thanks Andy for seeking to open up the debate through your blog.

[John R Hudson]

I think the reference to Union ignores the fact that in 1892, the Arminian New Covenant churches decided to join the Union. Arminius specifically argued against the Catholic and Calvinist view that marriage is a sacrament. So most of the arguments against the Marriage Act are meaningless in an Arminian context.
It is unfortunate that those of a Calvinist persuasion believe that they should impose their view of marriage on those of an Arminian persuasion.

[Audrey Rowland]

Thank you Mark your comment is what my thoughts were when reading the statement.
We do seem to have a statement that contradicts itself.

And I guess John I've fought the battle of not being of a Calvinist persuasion for 50 years ie most of my church life and here we go again!!

[Alec Gilmore]

As one no longer on the front line I have kept my counsel on most matters, kept a watcful eye on what was going on at a distance and left the fighting to others. I am however prompted to break the habit as a result of reading the Council's Statement on Same Sex Marriage in the same week as I am in the process of reviewing Rowan Williams's latest book, Meeting God in Paul and with the two together I heard a voice over my shoulder and it wasn't Rowan. It might have been Paul but I think it was from on high.
It didn't relate to any of the issues in the Statement (perhaps that alone says something) but rather to the way we handle such issues. Whilst fully appreciating the problems for Lyn Green and her colleagues I was sharply pulled up by her comment that she found herself 'grappling with this issue' aware of what she describes as 'a profound biblical truth'. Since she doessn't say what it is nor where she found it I cannot question it, but in terms of church relationships certainly not in Paul.
For Paul, says Rowan, two key words are 'welcome' and 'freedom'. Because God welcomes us we are called to welcome one another, especially in church relatonships, and not least when we find ourselves needlessly scrapping with one another (Romans 14:3,15:7 or Ephesians 2) to go no further, And as for freedom. think of it not as a way of being free to do what we want but a 'new way of belonging together in the company of God', citing Paul's anger with the Galatians, charging them with 'wanting to go backwards' and 'trying to lay down terms for God as to whom he can invite into his community'. Similarly in Rome, when Christians are busy passing judgements on one another, he says that 'respect for my fellow Christian is like my respect for another person's property'. Paul had not sat at the feet of Gamaliel for nothing. He knew that nobody had the whole truth. He also knew the dangers of being 'found fighting against God'.
To a point the Council Statement reflects much of this but if the Devil is 'in the small print' in this case he manages to creep into the last paragraph. He is bound to find some satisfaction is the plea that churches considering conducting same-sex marriages refrain from doing so 'out of mutual respect' and even more satisfactionat when those who object to same-sex marriage are not asked to show similar respect to those churches (and especially ministers) who take a different view, but only 'to show mutual respect' by remaining in the Union. Is that what really matters?
The issue is not Same Sex Marriage and it certainly isn't respect for the Union. More a problem of relatioships between believers, with 'Galatians' who have difficulty abandoning the old order in favour of the freedom Paul says that we have in Christ. And thank you, Rowan, for drawing our attention to it.

[Martin Kernick]

The statement shows none of the 'mutual respect' it talks about. It seems that the BU want those churches who want to go ahead with same sex marriage to refrain from doing so out of "mutual respect" but shows no respect for their church meeting's discernment of the Holy Spirit's leading. How can that be mutual respect? Our church voted almost unanimously to register for same sex weddings and we did so because we see in the character of Jesus, someone who railed against the oppressive practices of the religious institution of his day. I dare say the Pharisees urged Jesus to show respect for their edicts too! I'm glad he didn't.