If we left the Baptist Union where could we go? (Epiphanies guidelines apply)
Anna_Baptist
Shipmate
There are rumours about that the BUGB Council is going to recommend changes around the theory and practice of same-sex marriage.
The local church I belong to would find it difficult to remain in the BU if this was the case.
There are already voices in the congregation that decry the BU’s theological liberalism. But this would probably tip the balance in favour of leaving the association.
I’m not interested in discussing these issues. The question for me is, “Where could we go?”
We believe in congregational government, credo-baptism (although paedobaptism plus confirmation will get you in a Church member), equality of the sexes, and broad Evangelical doctrine ( we're members of the Evangellical Alliance). We are mildly charismatic. We have an open Communion table.
I am struggling to think of a denomination where we could be all this and accepted. FIEC won't work because of its subordination of women. But I wouldn't want to be in an independent church - that seems unscriptural to me.
Do any shipmates have suggestions?
(ETA Guidelines info, DT, Admin)
The local church I belong to would find it difficult to remain in the BU if this was the case.
There are already voices in the congregation that decry the BU’s theological liberalism. But this would probably tip the balance in favour of leaving the association.
I’m not interested in discussing these issues. The question for me is, “Where could we go?”
We believe in congregational government, credo-baptism (although paedobaptism plus confirmation will get you in a Church member), equality of the sexes, and broad Evangelical doctrine ( we're members of the Evangellical Alliance). We are mildly charismatic. We have an open Communion table.
I am struggling to think of a denomination where we could be all this and accepted. FIEC won't work because of its subordination of women. But I wouldn't want to be in an independent church - that seems unscriptural to me.
Do any shipmates have suggestions?
(ETA Guidelines info, DT, Admin)
Comments
Not much help, I'm afraid.
How binding upon individual congregations, though, would BUGB decisions be?
I'm going to take a wild guess that any changes will be permissive rather than prescriptive, congregational governance being what it is, i.e. the objection is that other congregations might decide differently to @Anna_Baptist 's . To which I think the Biblical response would be "What is that to thee? follow thou [Jesus]."
Although individual congregations have a large degree of autonomy in the Baptist Union Baptist ecclesiology also emphasises interdependence. We look to the scriptural record and see that there are no independent churches. They all have some apostolic oversight. Initially from Jerusalem, but then we see that John and Paul look after a number of churches. But the age of apostles has passed and now churches have to rely on each other to keep themselves straight.
Some in our congregation would say that the money that we give to the BU, particularly to the Home Mission Fund would then be supporting immorality.
Hmm. Would they withhold that part of their income tax which they think might be spent by the government on immoral things (such as weapons, perhaps)?
Still, they could withhold money from the BU, and divert it to charities (say) which they believe are not immoral...
Sorry - this is perhaps a bit of a tangent. As you were...
worship and for what reasons. Those reasons seem to fall into two sections, style (charismatic etc.) and theological. Of the two theological issues are the more important.
For you it seems important that you and your fellow worshippers are in agreement over an extensive number of beliefs beyond what would be generally held as necessary for conventional mainstream Christians. In a British context you are clearly going to be in great difficulty in ticking all the boxes you indicate in your post. Historically the answer would be to form a breakaway sect with likeminded individuals, but whether that option is open to you seems doubtful. From what you say in your post, it would seem that the congregation of which you are a member are generally at one over essentials and it would seem a pity for it to break-up. Until the BU changes its position over gay marriage I suggest you hold fire because subsequently you may find a number of congregations like yours willing to form a new association.
Coming from a more liberal position than yourself, I like to see myself as one of those not too exercised by what other worshippers believe and would, consequently, recommend you be less concerned and more pluralistic in your stance. On the other hand, were I to live in the American South I'd have difficulty in accepting many "evangelical" churches as Christian. Your question thus raises questions regarding the parameters of my liberality. Are there limits to inclusiveness?
I think this would equally apply to the other groupings of more conservative minded Baptist Churches.
Yes. It's the paradox of tolerance isn't it? If we tolerate intolerance the intolerant will be able to stop us effectively tolerating what they are intolerant of.
A tolerant church cannot for example tolerate the view that openly gay people cannot be church members, at least not if that view seeks to be policy.
I appreciate that this might be a step too far!
Especially since the problem is the Baptist Union bring seen as too liberal. @Anna_Baptist has also said they're credobaptist; Episcopalians are paedobaptist.
Yes, but the really liberal ones (I can't offhand think of any in particular, I'm afraid, but there must be some!) might well be happy with credobaptists.
I take your point, though, and (on reflection) I may have read too much into the OP.
If push comes to shove, linking with other like-minded Baptist congregations might be the best option.
Even though I'm C of E (albeit temporarily lapsed), I do appreciate the importance of the paedo-baptist as against credo-baptist points of view.
Yes, and it is a route that Baptists have gone down before. But I wonder about the effort required to get a new association off the ground. Just keeping our present congregation going is exhausting for the leadership. Hence, thinking about a pret-a-porter rather than bespoke solution.
However: 1. Have you thought of the Grace Baptists? They may of course be neither charismatic- nor female-friendly.
2. Is your building held in trust by a Baptist Corporation? It probably is; in which case you'd need to liaise with them before leaving BUGB or else you'd be running into legal difficulties.
Very good advice, also relevant to joining (or voting for) political parties.
Yes, that was what I was thinking of above, and theologically they are only going to be a fit for a fairly particular type of church.
Many Anglican churches happily practice/support credobaptist members alongside pedobaptist members - charismatic Anglicans seem to do so quite often, and also mostly support women in leadership. This might be a good option.
I'm not sure how many 'general Baptists' seceded. I've also heard that a number rejoined the Baptist Union within a few years.
Independent Baptists tend to be fairly FIEC in flavour and from what I can see among mildly charismatic Baptists most would probably stay within the Baptist Union rather than break away over this particular issue.
The position is mixed, as it is with mildly charismatic Anglicans. I know of an evangelical Anglican parish which must have lost 8 or 9 key members, some in positions of office, as it were, because the vicars took a hard traditionalist line on this issue.
It could be that a new Baptist association would emerge but I'd be surprised if it gained sufficient critical mass to become a going concern longer term - but then I think that of various associations of very different churchmanships.
I don't see any obvious bedfellows in a formal sense, but I can see overlaps in style and ethos with Vineyard and moderately charismatic Anglican churches - apart from.the church government aspect.
Interesting dilemma.
The Declaration of Principle is no longer fit for purpose. The big question it prompts is not what Baptists agree on but what we disagree on so vehemently that we cannot stay together.
BUGB has been in this sort of situation before and, like then, the denomination has slept walked into crisis. Then, a number of churches split off: some went to FIEC others became independent.
As to your two points? Grace Baptists are pretty much Closed Brethren with knobs on and neither charismatic nor female friendly (in terms of participation in services).
As to the buildings, it depends on the Trust involved and/or the constitution. Some of the latter say "may" be a member of BUGB. Besides which plenty of churches manage without a building - loads do in this neck of the woods.
Hi I have sent you a private message.
They sound great to me. However, they seem to be exactly what @Anna_Baptist 's congregation object to:
Worthing Baptist Church is committed to the love and inclusion of all people, affirming diversity in sexuality, gender identity, ethnicity, age, physical ability, learning disability, neurodiversity, and mental health. On 8th November 2021, we were delighted to agree as a church on registering our building for same-sex marriage.
I don't know much about the inner workings of the Baptist Union but rather suspect like ExclamationMark that it has been sleep-walking towards this crisis, but then I'm not sure how it could have avoided it.
Perhaps some kind of new association will emerge which occupies some kind of middle ground between the more headline independent Baptist groups such as the Grace Baptists and the Strict and Particulars (do they still exist?) and an increasingly more liberal Baptist Union?
If so, that might be convenient but it begs a few questions for me that apply more broadly across the Christian spectrum as a whole. If we are to separate over whatever the issue then, given our relatively low numbers, aren't we going to end up in smaller and smaller fissaporous groups?
The 19th century saw a plethora of splinter-groups, umpteen varieties of Methodist for instance.
Whatever we think of that - good, bad or indifferent - there were at least the numbers to bear it. That is no longer the case.
In a different kind of way, few of the religious orders founded by Victorian and Edwardian Anglo-Catholics outlived their founders by any length of time.
It is a conundrum for Anna_Baptist's congregation. Mainstream 'nonconformist' Protestant denominations here are generally fairly liberal on Dead Horse issues these days. That's certainly the case with the Methodists and URC around here and seems to be the way the BUGB is heading.
So where do you go if you want to avoid that but equally aren't drawn towards the somewhat harsh and brittle feel of groups like the FIEC, Grace Baptists and so on?
My guess would be that groups like the Vineyard and the traditional Pentecostal denominations as well as New Frontiers (or whatever it calls itself these days) are going to have to confront and deal with these issues sooner or later - if they haven't begun to do so already. I'm sure they have been discussing and debating these issues for some time.
So what happens if Anna_Baptist's church affiliates with another, existing group only to find that it too takes a more liberal line in 5 or 10 years time?
Do they leave and seek another association?
How long could that go on and where would it end?
A question though ... as much as I understand the Baptist emphasis on interdependence, in practice the congregational polity does give individual churches a wide degree of wriggle-room.
In my experience, Baptist ministers and many individual members of Baptist churches get on very well and collaborate with their Anglican, URC or Methodist neighbours and sit loosely by regional associations within their own denomination. That isn't because they don't 'get on' with Baptists across the other side of town, but because they tend to work locally.
I suppose it depends on how individual congregations regard independence and interdependence as working out in practice.
My question though is why Anna's church feels so concerned about being part of a grouping in which diverse views are held?
My impression is that Vineyard are more flexible than the others which are mostly in retrenchment mode. The likes of Elim etc. have a hidden level of flexibility when it comes to women's ministry as increasing numbers of churches are effectively led by the ministering couple rather than the man alone.
Possibly because that they see this as a first order issue and one over which there can be no compromise? I don't that this is the case for A's church but I know of Baptist Churches where it is.
I can only reiterate what I posted above .... we are soak testing the Declaration of Principle and it has reached the edge of destruction. For some people, the liberty to interpret is being over stretched beyond what they see as a Biblical boundary - it won't bring more people in and will alienate many who are already here. I can appreciate the issues around love, justice contemporary witness but for many in the BU - I'd estimate 35% - this whole area is a major sticking point.
It hasn't helped that the messages have been very mixed on the public stage for many years. Too much don't ask, don't tell too many public decisions overturned or ignored in private. Overall, I feel that there are questions of integrity that need to be aired - a common issue in public life.
It all seems very drawn out .... it is a case of whatever we have to do then let's do it quickly, split if we have to, and get it over.
As often the case with your posts GG you are bang on the money in your posts both IMHO and IME on the ground.
There is wriggle room but the impact of it depends on the issue: this one is, I think (hear and see, too) a line in the sand one. With integrity you can't service two masters as you would by having opposing opinions of this nature. There has to be a general understanding of what the "Principals" are, otherwise the descent into Anarchy beckons.
The general understanding is that as an explicitly evangelical movement, the biblical principals are of 1st order. There are different interpretations on the various texts of course.
Most Baptists are more interested in local issues vs national ones. I think it reflects the fact that few people today are denominationally minded and most baptist churches have a mix of people from varied backgrounds that settle into a place because they feel happy with the set up not necessarily the denomination.
I am, as it were, looking in from the outside nowadays, having recently resigned from my Lay Ministry role, and no longer taking an active part in parish affairs and worship.
Crikey flip. Is that really true? Sterlisation is not something I would expect evangelical churches to be mad keen on.
I hope the young lady mentioned by @Sojourner was able to resist...
I hope they resisted too (sounds like the man was also supposed to be sterilised?)
As you say, astonishing and horriying.
That’s what she told me. I’ll never know whether the happy couple went ahead or not; never saw her again.
Oops - sorry - tangent...
This is the scripture that has been quoted:
Rev 2:20-25
People think that these views are not "diverse" but rather against "the plain meaning of scripture". If we are part of an association that has churches that hold these views then we would be guilty of tolerating them and under God's judgment.
Also, as I mentioned before, we support the BU financially, and some people would rather this money be given to properly evangelical causes.
Fixed broken URL. BroJames, Purgatory Host
I think you may find that you are stuck in between people who agree on all these views but also include the ordination of women as one of these views, and people who agree on the ordination of women but don't agree with the rest of these views.
Perhaps that's what Patriarch Kirill is doing?