|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Has the Evangelical Alliance shot itself in the foot?
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
EM: re your point 2, I don't if this was voted on or whether it was announced from "on high" - do you (genuine question!)? If the former, given the numbers you cite, which wouldn't entirely surprise me, wondering how this got through Assembly?
AFAIK there's been no vote - the numbers are a combination of anecdotal evidence, personal knowledge of several regions and a little extrapolation.
I know of several churches who will leave BUGB if it decides to endorse this and a few ministers who will tear up their accreditations.
Anyone for infant baptism?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Sorry, I meant whether yesterday's decision was by vote or not, not the numbers in opposition to it.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I'm not a Baptist but I've just read this blog post from a Baptist minister. A snippet:
quote:
Reports suggest that... decisions concerning the recognition of same sex relationships will [now] be made by the local church, and ministers will be responsible to their church meeting, not to the national denomination. This decision is a surprise to me, because I thought it would be politically impossible, or nearly so, to reach; it is also very obviously right. The way (British) Baptist life works (the SBC is rather different) is that decisions like this properly belong to the church meeting; that is an obvious deduction from our ecclesiology.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Here's the official statement from BUGB, the key phrase being this:
quote:
Upholding the liberty of a local church to determine its own mind on this matter, in accordance with our Declaration of Principle, we also recognise the freedom of a minister to respond to the wishes of their church, where their conscience permits, without breach of disciplinary guidelines.
In other words, if a Baptist church decides to agree to hold a same-sex wedding, the minister can now "respond" (presumably officiate/celebrate?) without fear of breaching the guidelines - which was, in theory, the risk before.
I'd read Steve Holmes' post that SCK linked to as well. I think it's a good one and makes the point that this brings the policy more fully into line with Baptist principles: ultimately, it's for the local church to think, pray and decide about these issues. The fact that ministers are now officially free* to be part of that church's decision, if it is in favour of allowing SSM within their church, I think brings the policy fully in line with this principle: the minister, who is ultimately part of the local church in Baptist ecclesiology, is now able to be part of his/her church's decision, rather than having to absent themselves from it. To me, at least, it's a wise, sensible and, ultimately, Baptist decision.
* Regardless of whether or not this happened in practice to particular individuals
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
IME, most evangelical churches either have a congregational form of government similar to the Baptist churches, or are within denominations that include non-evangelical churches (and, it's not unusual for evangelical churches in such denominations to often pay lip service to the denominational structure, but otherwise act like Congregationalists). Evangelicals, by and large, would consider liberty for local congregations the ideal - although recognising that historic accident puts some of them within denomonations that do not provide for that as much as they'd wish.
Which puts the position of the Evangelical Alliance in drawing a line the way they have somewhat at odds with the ecclesiology of many evangelicals - regardless of their views on the particular line being drawn.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Yes, that's a good point Alan, and I hadn't meant to suggest that it was only Baptist churches that had this polity; just that, IMHO, this brings the policy more in line with what Baptists (and the other evangelical groups you mention) profess about their ecclesiology. (Should know better, I'm minister of a Baptist/Congregational Local Ecumenical Project!)
And yes, the EA's decision on Oasis does seem to be a denial of that to any evangelical church that is a member: "you can reach any view on things you want, as long as we don't disagree with it". Which is even worse when Oasis claim (and the EA doesn't dispute this) that they had "no corporate view on this matter": so it's not even that Oasis didn't "think right", it's that they didn't express what they didn't think in the right way (I think...)
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Is it just me ... but do other people think that the BUGB statement is more than a trifle ambiguous?
When I was at school, I remember being told that it was a good idea to "show your working" in maths problems, as well as the final result. I think it would have been useful to know how BUGB arrived at this.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Baptist Trainfan quote:
Is it just me ... but do other people think that the BUGB statement is more than a trifle ambiguous?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
When I first read it I thought it had come from either Lambeth or the Press Office in Church House.
Actually, of its type its quite masterly: it leaves it up to individual churches who can then blame individual ministers who can, in turn, claim the advice from BUGB was unclear - so NO-ONE upsets anybody.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Is it just me ... but do other people think that the BUGB statement is more than a trifle ambiguous?
When I was at school, I remember being told that it was a good idea to "show your working" in maths problems, as well as the final result. I think it would have been useful to know how BUGB arrived at this.
As an outsider (ie: non-Baptist) I thought the working was shown quite well in the linked summaries from Council meetings. Fairly typical of denominational working groups - incourage a "conversation" by producing a paper outlining the issue and the major views on it, elicit responses to the document/specific questions from churches, compile and summarise responses, report to an assembly/council/synod and produce a follow-up document for churches, repeat ... The recent statement is quite clearly a point along that process rather than the end. Which is probably why it seems ambiguous.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I think it clearly says that it is a waymark rather than a destination.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I think it clearly says that it is a waymark rather than a destination.
But where is the dialogue we were promised?
It looks rather like the churches can now determine the accreditation rules as well as being the monkeys to blame when all the peanuts fall off the trees.
Interesting too that a very mild comment (by my standards) questioning the process has been removed from the BUGB website
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
When I first read it I thought it had come from either Lambeth or the Press Office in Church House.
Actually, of its type its quite masterly: it leaves it up to individual churches who can then blame individual ministers who can, in turn, claim the advice from BUGB was unclear - so NO-ONE upsets anybody.
That's a feature, not a bug, or at least the "leaving it up to individual churches" bit is. That's how it's supposed to be and, in terms of whether a same-sex wedding can take place in a church, how it has been: that's how Baptists (and Congregationalists and others with this type of governance) are supposed to work. The problem some have seen is that this didn't apply to the ministers of those churches (assuming they were in agreement with the church's decision): they couldn't officiate or take part in the ceremony for fear of losing their accreditation as a minister, now they can.
As for the wooliness of the statement... yeah, I was slightly surprised it wasn't worded a bit more directly. But then I'm not long out of college and that language gets used quite a lot in that environment (and not just by Baptists, I hasten to add), so I guess I should be used to it!
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
But where is the dialogue we were promised?
It looks rather like the churches can now determine the accreditation rules as well as being the monkeys to blame when all the peanuts fall off the trees.
Not sure I fully get that last bit about churches setting the accreditation rules, but isn't this decision just making the rules a bit more how these things should happen? Aren't churches the places who are supposed to be making the decisions about whether they should hold any ceremony of any sort? And why shouldn't ministers, who are in one sense members of their churches the same (almost) as any other, be part of that - why should they have to "stand aside" from the decision of their church if they agree with it?
No minister is going to be forced to conduct a same sex wedding against their conscience - it's just that if they do, they won't face disciplinary action as they (in theory) could've done before. This isn't, from what can see, BUGB endorsing SSM (though I've a feeling that's a debate that's going to happen from here), it's just saying if a church feels it's being led to hold a SSM, the minister can officiate at it. I don't understand the problem.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
In terms of the dialogue, some churches may be reluctant or unable to have that conversation. I suspect that in the vast majority of cases if the question is raised at the Church Meeting the reaction will be "we're not expecting anyone to come to us asking for a SSM, no point discussing it". At least until a couple come up and ask to have a SSM there. Or, they'd follow an example from a previous church of mine where the decision to allow blessings of civil partnerships was passed with practically no discussion because "it'll never happen".
On a related subject a previous church had a major falling out over homosexuality, in the specific situation of calling a minister. We tried to provide multiple opportunities for the church to discuss the subject, in formal meetings, over coffee after services or lunch club, one to one chats with those known to be in favour. At the end of the day, with one or two exceptions, members didn't take the opportunity to talk and simply turned up at the meeting to vote against.
With that sort of attitude, there is no way to have the discussion. When only one side speaks up at church meetings, when one side only turns up at meetings to cast their vote, you don't have a discussion. Until the vote was in most of us in favour were unaware of the depth of feeling and opposition.
How do you manage to engage the whole church in a discussion? How do you avoid the situation where the conversation is conducted by the minority of members who attend the Church Meeting? How do you engage the rest of the congregation who don't attend church meetings?
It might be that evangelical churches, with an expectation of attendance at midweek study groups, may be better placed for such conversations to happen than churches where people don't gather other than on Sunday morning.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In terms of the dialogue, some churches may be reluctant or unable to have that conversation. ...
How do you manage to engage the whole church in a discussion?
In my experience, the problem is that there is a swathe of people in local churches and across denominations, who simply don't believe that conversation is possible. Sin is sin, they say, so what is there to discuss? Those who want dialogue are asking them to sit through a bunch of sophistries, trying to justify the unjustifiable.
This is what those on the more middle-of-the-road-to-liberal end of things find so hard to understand. They believe in dialogue; they don't want to shove anyone out; therefore they are trying very hard to find a way to keep everyone on side. It feels to them that they are bending over backwards to keep the lines of dialogue open, making all sorts of concessions to the point that they are actually violating their own inclusive conscience. And they cannot see why the very conservative can't at least try and reciprocate some of this, just meet them half way (or not even half way), and allow space in turn for the 'liberal' conscience to operate freely.
However, the very conservative simply cannot make room for another point of view on this matter. You cannot make room for sin, period. Live and let live is not an option for them.
I have been learning the hard way that you cannot dialogue with people who believe that dialogue is impossible.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
[QUOTE] This isn't, from what can see, BUGB endorsing SSM (though I've a feeling that's a debate that's going to happen from here), it's just saying if a church feels it's being led to hold a SSM, the minister can officiate at it. I don't understand the problem.
It's creating the space where BUGB will soon endorse SSM on the basis that they can't do much about it so far as the churches and ministers are concerned. And yes, I agree with you on that.
Despite promises there's been no discussions at any level and no theological reflection on the rights and wrongs of SSB's and SSM's, whatever our ecclesiology allows the churches to do.
It's that point I find the most frustrating as well as the usual BUGB language that would make fudge and jelly look solid. It's a pity that, after saying they'd do nothing, Ministry Dept suddenly has a change of tack: one wonders just what or who we can trust.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
[QUOTE]I have been learning the hard way that you cannot dialogue with people who believe that dialogue is impossible.
I agree but it works both ways. A conservative will never shift a liberal 9esp a Quaker!) who has made up their mind first.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
[QUOTE]I have been learning the hard way that you cannot dialogue with people who believe that dialogue is impossible.
I agree but it works both ways. A conservative will never shift a liberal 9esp a Quaker!) who has made up their mind first.
I'm not talking about shifting someone's opinion. I'm talking about making room for it. Allowing it a space to operate. Not legislating against it.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Despite promises there's been no discussions at any level and no theological reflection on the rights and wrongs of SSB's and SSM's, whatever our ecclesiology allows the churches to do.
It's that point I find the most frustrating as well as the usual BUGB language that would make fudge and jelly look solid. It's a pity that, after saying they'd do nothing, Ministry Dept suddenly has a change of tack: one wonders just what or who we can trust.
I agree that there has not been sufficient discussion, publicly at least - there has been a fear that putting it on the Assembly agenda will generate much more hear than light and merely entrench existing polarisations.
However I'm pretty sure this didn't come from Ministry Dept.; I know that some kind of announcement was being formulated by the Steering Group when it met a few weeks ago, on request of the previous Council. Note that the announcement came from Faith & Society rather than Ministry - I think it is they who have been making the running on this issue.
I have no idea how much F&S have discussed the issue ... I do know that the URC (as an example from another denomination) has had a "Sexuality Task Group" running for several years.
[ 13. May 2014, 08:53: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
I would point out as well that there was discussion at last year's Assembly about this, though this was couched more in terms of responding pastorally as churches to this issue rather than the theological rights and wrongs of SSM. It seemed (to me at least) that this was a useful and constructive discussion and far from divisive and the consensus seemed to be that more discussion was needed and welcome.
That said, this conversation has hardly been upfront - it seems to be limited to an email address which could exclude a lot of people (though the same could be said about other consultations recently, such as the Futures consultation which was done entirely online - but that's perhaps a bit of a tangent). Part of that might be because there's the wider changes going on in the Union which might make it difficult to have a focussed conversation on something as controversial as this - but it still could've been made more prominent?
Also, I'd agree with Alan's point here: most churches will probably only discuss this when it becomes "real" for them, when they're actually faced with having to decide, say, whether or not to permit SSM in their church. Until then, it all becomes a bit abstract and theoretical and, if my church is anything to go by, abstract and theoretical stuff doesn't make for engagement by most church members (probably rightly so, as well).
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The BU has encouraged churches to have the discussion, and has enabled that to take place by putting together a set of materials on sexuality and training facilitators to deliver it.
Saying that the discussion needs to happen in local churches is a consistent and congregationalist approach.
The odd bit of the BU's stance up to now has been including a rule about sexuality in the accreditation rules. It's the only rule like it. There's no equivalent rule requiring ministers not to be, say, racist or sexist. There are no doctrinal requirements about, say, whether women may be in leadership. There are general statements about 'conduct unbecoming' being grounds for disciplinary action, and then there is this one issue of sexuality given special treatment.
I'm pretty sure the BU won't be endorsing same sex marriage. Why would they? How could they? What would it mean if they did?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The BU has encouraged churches to have the discussion, and has enabled that to take place by putting together a set of materials on sexuality and training facilitators to deliver it.
Actually, now you mention that... that material was being developed and came out when I was at college - we actually went through it together and it was helpful: not taking one side or the other of the argument, but outlining the different arguments on both sides. It was good, though I don't remember it being widely publicised since (though that may be my sleep-deprived brain not noticing it...).
quote:
I'm pretty sure the BU won't be endorsing same sex marriage. Why would they? How could they? What would it mean if they did?
I'd agree with that and the statement that was issued yesterday seemed to make it fairly clear that nothing was changing any time soon in that regard.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Which - to my mind - seems to leave Ministers who do believe in SSM in a strange situation. They can (it seems) perform it, without fear of disaccreditation but they will do so knowing that the BU's is frowning upon them with disapproval!
Again, why did BUGB have to strongly endorse "traditional" marriage? Was that less a statement of "position" and more of a sop to calm the masses who would be worried that it was going "soft" and might leave? They need not have said anything, and just declared that it is an individual matter of conscience. As I say, the whole thing appears very equivocal.
[ 13. May 2014, 10:15: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Yes, there's a sense of "We recognise you have the right to do this, but we'd really rather you didn't".
Mind you, someone from Oasis tweeted on Saturday, after the announcement at Assembly, that this had happened and speculated, I think tongue-in-cheekily, whether BUGB might be the next to be kicked out of the EA. I'm (genuinely) sure that wouldn't happen, but couldn't help but wonder if the statement was written with one eye on consequences such as that?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Yes, there's a sense of "We recognise you have the right to do this, but we'd really rather you didn't".
Mind you, someone from Oasis tweeted on Saturday, after the announcement at Assembly, that this had happened and speculated, I think tongue-in-cheekily, whether BUGB might be the next to be kicked out of the EA. I'm (genuinely) sure that wouldn't happen, but couldn't help but wonder if the statement was written with one eye on consequences such as that?
It seems so to me. EA's beef with Oasis didn't so much even seem to be Chalkie's position but that the materials on their website agitated for the revisionist view without presenting the traditional view (for which, of course, the EA has made a big deal about going into bat for.) The BU have cleverly allowed for congregational change of position whilst still asserting the traditional view.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Again, why did BUGB have to strongly endorse "traditional" marriage?
Yes. I wasn't there, but I'm told there was a statement put up on a screen along the lines that we 'affirm' that most Baptist churches continue to believe that marriage must be between a man and a woman.
The word affirm is really weird. You can affirm traditional marriage, but that most churches believe it is either true or not true. You can't affirm a fact. It either is or it isn't, and you can merely note or acknowledge it.
The word means nothing in that sentence, but putting it in close proximity to 'traditional marriage' might give the impression of a commitment that traditionalists would be happy about.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Yes, there's a sense of "We recognise you have the right to do this, but we'd really rather you didn't".
I'm not a Baptist or a congregationalist, but within the Baptist polity AIUI from what people have posted here, that seems a perfectly reasonable position. In fact, by identifying the right of the local Church to decide its position on SSM as more important than the substantive issue of whether SSM is right or not, it is, surely, saying, however reluctantly, that support for SSM is within the range of positions that a Christian might legitimately take. (By way of a hypothetical contrast, presumably we can't imagine BUGB saying that local churches had a right to decide whether or not to celebrate polygamous marrages.)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Logically, I think that is exactly the position that the Union would have to take, provided that those agitating for it could at least make some Biblical case in favour and, as you say, were within the broad stream of Christian doctrinal acceptability. After all, SSM was a complete "no-no" until very fecently!
You must remember that, coming from a tradition of "Old Dissent", the BUGB has no formal Statement of Faith - unlike the EA (and, indeed, many of its own member churches). All it has is the "Declaration of Principle":
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.
So, in matters such as morality, you - not individually, but in a covenanted partnership with other churches - are having to decide whether your interpretation is "Spirit-led" or not.
[ 13. May 2014, 12:40: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The word means nothing in that sentence, but putting it in close proximity to 'traditional marriage' might give the impression of a commitment that traditionalists would be happy about.
Yes, that's what it sounds like from where I'm standing. Strangely enough, this question came forcibly to mind on Saturday afternoon (before the "news" broke) as I was taking a wedding and using the BUGB "Gathering for Worship" book of prayers, which says:
"God has made us in his own image, male and female, and marriage is his gift, a holy mystery in which man and woman become one flesh ...
"Marriage is founded in God’s loving nature,and in his covenant of love with us in Christ. Husband and wife, in giving themselves to each other in love, reflect the love of Christ for his Church.
"Marriage is given so that husband and wife may comfort and help each other ...".
Presumably there would be a lot of editing needed for SSM although I'm sure it has already been done in other places!
Someone after the service congratulated me for so strongly "affirming the traditional view of marriage" and I must say that I felt a bit of a fraud as that wasn't my specific intention at all.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
So, in matters such as morality, you - not individually, but in a covenanted partnership with other churches - are having to decide whether your interpretation is "Spirit-led" or not.
The big questions are
- why no wider consultation?
- what is the council afraid of?
- what provision is there for those churches, who in all conscience - and after having studied the scriptures - believe SSB's and SSm's so wromng that they cannot, in such conscience continue to associate with churches who take the opposite view?
- what happens if a minister is considering a move to another church but finds that he/she and the church are on opposite sides of the debate?
= what happens to those who are denied a post for reasons of genuine conviction
I think I can see a split looming on the horizon made worse by BUGB's fudge - affirming the view of marriage as between a man and a woman gives "traditionalists" no sop nor hope whatsoever: BUGB's perspective has changed once, it will do so again - soon.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The big questions are
- why no wider consultation?
- what is the council afraid of?
- what provision is there for those churches, who in all conscience - and after having studied the scriptures - believe SSB's and SSm's so wromng that they cannot, in such conscience continue to associate with churches who take the opposite view?
- what happens if a minister is considering a move to another church but finds that he/she and the church are on opposite sides of the debate?
= what happens to those who are denied a post for reasons of genuine conviction
My answers (for what they're worth):
1) I'm not sure it's true to say there's been no consultation. There have been ongoing conversations, beginning (at least) at last year's Assembly which, I presume, have influenced the statement that came out yesterday.
2) Presumably, Council are afraid of the massive turmoil that's hit some of the other denominations that have been (trying to) address this issue. YMMV as to whether this manages it or not. Remember they've got to try and balance the views you mention with those who are at the opposite end of the spectrum and those, like I'd guess the majority of churches, who are somewhere in between.
3) Don't know, because I'm not sure BUGB's at that stage in its thinking about this issue. Personally (as someone who's still trying to work this issue out for myself), I'd be very sad if that happened, if that became the point of departure. I'd point back to what Baptist Trainfan said about covenantal relationship, which is surely at the heart of Baptist life: the ideal is surely that even when we disagree hugely on something like this, we try and work at it together without necessarily seeking to change each other's minds and without talk of splits or walk-outs. Much easier said than done, I understand, but that's I think what we sign up for as Baptist (/Congregational/similar) churches.
4) Again, that'd be something for the church and the minister to work out together (perhaps with the help of regional ministers etc.). I'd guess if they really couldn't bridge the gap then the move wouldn't happen - again, I think that'd be very sad.
5) What do you mean by this? I'd imagine, given the current state, that'd be more likely to be a minister who's strongly pro-SSM and SSB than someone who's anti.
As for talk of "fudge" - it's not the best-made and communicated decision but, as I said above, to me this is much more in line with the Baptist Declaration Of Principle and with the Baptist way of making these decisions than BUGB simply pronouncing "this is the way it should be" (which has hardly failed to prevent splits in other denominations). It's messy, yes: but I think it's better that we try and work this out together than someone comes down one way or the other and tells us what to do. Isn't that what we believe the Spirit will lead us into if we seek him/her about it?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
The Baptist Ministers' Fellowship (BMF) has held at least two consultations in different parts of the country at the request of the BU. I went to a London one last June at Bloomsbury Baptist Church. There were probably 70 or 80 people there, and a careful discussion was facilitated. I believe there's another one next month.
I'm not sure what provision you can make for people who don't want to have anything to do with each other. That's a pretty terminal attitude.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
- what happens if a minister is considering a move to another church but finds that he/she and the church are on opposite sides of the debate?
= what happens to those who are denied a post for reasons of genuine conviction
Are Baptists calling churches? I suspect they are, in which case ...
A church issues a call for a new minister. That call includes a detailed description of the church. If that church has made a definite decision to either allow SSMs or not that would be part of the church profile. A minister with strong views on the subject can then make a decision as to whether they feel called to a church with a different opinion. If the church hasn't made a definite decision (which, for the foreseeable future is likely to be the vast majority of churches) then if the minister is asked to visit the church then his or her views can be made known, and the church can decide whether or not they want to call someone with strong views on a subject of potential contention they have not had a conversation about.
Either way, a statement from BUGB that churches and ministers are free to make their own decisions means that things can be in the open and no one needs to call or feel called in a way that could result in serious problems in the church over differences of opinion.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The Baptist Ministers' Fellowship (BMF) has held at least two consultations in different parts of the country at the request of the BU. I went to a London one last June at Bloomsbury Baptist Church. There were probably 70 or 80 people there, and a careful discussion was facilitated.
Yes, I was there.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A church issues a call for a new minister. That call includes a detailed description of the church. If that church has made a definite decision to either allow SSMs or not that would be part of the church profile.
Just like CofE churches who say if they have passed Resolutions 1,2 or 3 regarding women's ministry. I can't see the problem, unless churches aren't "up-front" about where they stand.
The alternative is that the issue comes when a potential minister comes "with a view" (although it would be better to know earlier, to prevent time-wasting and disappointment). I remember the church I now serve quizzing me on that occasion about remarrying divorcees, which had ben a contentious issue under my predecessor.
[ 13. May 2014, 16:49: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Yes, there'd be plenty of time for this to be discussed within the calling process. And if churches (or ministers) felt strongly one way or the other about this, presumably they'd make that clear from the outset.
And surely, if this was the only sticking point between church and potential minister, they could find ways to try and address it somehow? A dispute on this doesn't have to be a deal-breaker.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Agreed. It's worth reminding oneself that the URC does now allow ministers and churches to do SSBs and CPs (SSMs must surely follow). Some ministers and churches are in favour and some are not. Clearly this issue is already having to be addressed in their calling process, though I don't know how.
[ 13. May 2014, 17:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, there are plenty of opportunities to identify what might be a problem prior to someone preaching with a view. I only know a bit about the process in the URC, so apologies if there are differences with a Baptist church.
First, of course, there's the church profile which would let a potential minister get a first feel for the church. That should include enough to identify what might be problem areas (which could be choice of hymns, relationships with other local churches etc as well as SSM) and potential ministers who know that's not going to work don't apply.
In the URC, the applications go through the Synod Moderators. A bit of discussion between the moderator for the candidates current charge and the calling church is a second chance to avert a disaster. I guess that's the step most likely to be different in Baptist churches.
The candidates' CV is passed to the vacancy committee for consideration. They may send back a set of written questions, or arrange an initial conversation by phone/Skype. Which is a third chance to avert disaster.
Then there's a formal interview with the vacancy committee, along with a series of "meet and greet" events in the church - coffee mornings, visits to organisations using the hall, a meeting with Elders. By the end of that process major areas of disagreement should be well known, and if those are going to be problems then that's the end of the process.
Finally, there's a "preach with a view" followed by vote of the church members. By the time things reach that point the appointment would be a formality, though in theory a vote against is possible.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Agreed. It's worth reminding oneself that the URC does now allow ministers and churches to do SSBs and CPs (SSMs must surely follow). Some ministers and churches are in favour and some are not. Clearly this issue is already having to be addressed in their calling process, though I don't know how.
We went through a vacancy recently. I thought that the approval for blessing civil partnerships which had been accepted by Church Meeting a couple of years before the old minister retired had been mentioned in the profile, but I've just skimmed through it and it isn't there. Our first candidate, however, certainly knew of it - it was one of the reasons why he (as a gay man in a committed partnership) felt he was called to us. Not that it meant much when it came to the final vote, despite adding an unusual extra step in the process by holding a special church meeting at the end a service (so getting everyone present rather than just the few who come out for a Tuesday evening meeting) in which his letter clearly stating his sexuality and relationship was read out and the congregation discussed this and voted for the vacancy committee to ask him to interview.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
Alan, what denomination do you write about?
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The URC. More precisely, the URC in Scotland which is probably a lot closer to Congregational than the rest of the UK.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The Baptist Ministers' Fellowship (BMF) has held at least two consultations in different parts of the country at the request of the BU. I went to a London one last June at Bloomsbury Baptist Church. There were probably 70 or 80 people there, and a careful discussion was facilitated.
Yes, I was there.
So was I. I had the honour of listening to Trainfan as I was sitting just behind him. I wouldn't say the discussion was careful judging from the heat some of the views expressed both by those in civil partnerships and those vehemently opposed.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I meant that the discussion was structured, with speakers talking to various aspects of the subject, someone chairing the meeting, and scenarios for the group discussion. It wasn't just a bunch of people having a free for all in a big room.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There's nothing wrong with heated discussion. Often it's essential to actually see how vehemently some people hold their opinions. As long as there's structure to the discussion, and a strong chair, so that it's not just a shouting match. You'll never satisfy the most vehement on both sides, but the vast majority in between may be able to eventually turn the discussions into a viable middle road that is acceptable to the majority. And, if the hot heads hold the unity of the church high enough they may even calm down enough to contribute more than just strength of feeling to the discussion.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell
IME (and also from what I've read) the URC is less evangelical overall than the Baptist Church. Perhaps this means that the URC has been forced to deal with this issue more openly than the Baptists, and certainly more than an organisation like the EA?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Certainly the URC would not consider itself as evangelical. So, the arguments within the URC regarding sexuality have a slightly different basis, we're not working from a view of the Bible as the "supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct" for example. Those on both sides phrase their arguments differently as a result.
I was really only using my experience to tackle to "what if a minister moves to a church with very different views" and "how do we hold a sensible conversation" questions. Despite the differences in theology, the practical matters of issuing and testing a call to ministry and getting the church to discuss things are going to be similar and I think my experience is informative. If others don't find it useful and informative feel free to ignore me.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Certainly the URC would not consider itself as evangelical.
True - although there is "GEAR" within it.
quote:
So, the arguments within the URC regarding sexuality have a slightly different basis, we're not working from a view of the Bible as the "supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct" for example.
Oh, I don't know, the URC's Statement on Faith & Order states that "The highest authority for what we believe and do is God’s Word in the Bible, alive for his people today through the help of the Spirit". So it's not really that different to the Baptists (who, by the way, do not take the Bible itself as highest authority, but Jesus as revealed through it - a subtle but important difference).
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
So, the arguments within the URC regarding sexuality have a slightly different basis, we're not working from a view of the Bible as the "supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct" for example.
Oh, I don't know, the URC's Statement on Faith & Order states that "The highest authority for what we believe and do is God’s Word in the Bible, alive for his people today through the help of the Spirit". So it's not really that different to the Baptists (who, by the way, do not take the Bible itself as highest authority, but Jesus as revealed through it - a subtle but important difference).
Yes, a subtle but very inportant difference.
IME the Statement on Faith & Order comes out when inducting a new minister, ordaining Elders and the like but is not generally something most church members even knows exists, much less take much notice of.
I'd say that if someone gave a "The Bible says in Leviticus ..." comment that it wouldn't be unusual for it to be simply dismissed as "that's not relevant". In many evangelical churches I've known that would create a storm of indignant "you can't just dismiss Scripture as irrelevant!" like comments, you're unlikely to get that indignation in the URC.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I meant that the discussion was structured, with speakers talking to various aspects of the subject, someone chairing the meeting, and scenarios for the group discussion. It wasn't just a bunch of people having a free for all in a big room.
That's fair to say. Unfortunately, for some of us, the steer that ministry dept gave/has given the discussion has been very disappointing in view of previous assurances. We not sure now just how trustworthy they are.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, but I think much of the point of those discussions was to collate views rather than to steer the debate in any particular direction.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, but I think much of the point of those discussions was to collate views rather than to steer the debate in any particular direction.
We'd have to agree to differ on that one. The views are well enough known, the steer from ministry department was blatant in one direction IMHO - at no point was continuing the status quo ever considered.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
