I am delighted to see that BUGB are seeking to use their no doubt enormous influence on the Patriarch and expect their efforts to end the war almost instantly.
It's a very good letter and I'm glad they sent it. He won't listen, of course, same as he won't listen to Orthodox clergy and organisations that have written expressing similar sentiments.
Coming back to Anna_Baptist's church. I can understand their dilemma. I would expect, though, given Baptist polity that individual congregations would remain free to make their own decisions on these issues, but then the interdependence thing means that they might consider themselves to be subsidising or supporting unacceptable behaviour elsewhere.
If EM is right and around 35% of BUGB churches would see a traditional approach to these issues as a non-negotiable, then that's potentially a sizeable constituency to draw on if they did want to set up a new association or confederation of the like minded.
Splits and schisms are never neat and always messy, though, with collateral damage on all sides.
Sooner or later any new confederation will split over some issue or other.
I think the problem you're going to have is that most congregations who are bothered enough about the sexuality stuff to want to break away from BUGB are also likely to have a bee in their bonnet about women in ministry as well. They'll see you as the same dangerous liberals as your more intransigent members see those accepting of LGBT+
I think the problem you're going to have is that most congregations who are bothered enough about the sexuality stuff to want to break away from BUGB are also likely to have a bee in their bonnet about women in ministry as well. They'll see you as the same dangerous liberals as your more intransigent members see those accepting of LGBT+
Ahem, but yes, I largely agree. Throw in congregational government as well, and it's a Venn diagram with very few people in the middle.
I think the problem you're going to have is that most congregations who are bothered enough about the sexuality stuff to want to break away from BUGB are also likely to have a bee in their bonnet about women in ministry as well. They'll see you as the same dangerous liberals as your more intransigent members see those accepting of LGBT+
Ahem, but yes, I largely agree. Throw in congregational government as well, and it's a Venn diagram with very few people in the middle.
I don't know about that - certainly I know of many charismatic evangelical churches with no issue with women in ministry but would come down firmly on LGBT+ issues. Ime not tolerating either tends to be a con-evo FIEC/GAFCON type stance.
St Sanity is part of a local ecumenical community, which arose from the close personal relationship between the then rector, the Catholic priest, and the minister of the nearby Uniting Church. That expanded to include another Uniting Church, the local Baptist Church, and another Baptist church a bit further away. Then that more distant Baptist Church left and last year the members of the local one also decided to leave. In each case, in accordance with Baptist polity it was the decision of the church members to discontinue the relationship and not that of the minister.
I don't know about that - certainly I know of many charismatic evangelical churches with no issue with women in ministry but would come down firmly on LGBT+ issues. Ime not tolerating either tends to be a con-evo FIEC/GAFCON type stance.
Yeah, but there's a difference between being anti-LGBT+* and being so anti that you want to separate yourself from more progressive congregations - as we see with GAFCON, as opposed to the many evangelical congregations in the CofE who are anti-LGBT+ (no doubt claiming to be welcoming) but are not GAFCON
I think it's that intersection that's quite a small set.
*I'm sure they, or at least many of them, wouldn't describe themselves that way but I think I'm in reasonably good company if I say that if you're not for, you're against
I think the problem you're going to have is that most congregations who are bothered enough about the sexuality stuff to want to break away from BUGB are also likely to have a bee in their bonnet about women in ministry as well.
AFAIK (and from what I hear) that's not the case. I can't speak with total knowledge from elsewhere but certainly it's not true in this neck of the woods (and across the region) that those churches who have reservations about revisionist views on sexuality are also concerned about women in ministry.
I think the problem you're going to have is that most congregations who are bothered enough about the sexuality stuff to want to break away from BUGB are also likely to have a bee in their bonnet about women in ministry as well.
AFAIK (and from what I hear) that's not the case. I can't speak with total knowledge from elsewhere but certainly it's not true in this neck of the woods (and across the region) that those churches who have reservations about revisionist views on sexuality are also concerned about women in ministry.
I think I addressed this in my reply to Pomona - there's a difference between "having reservations" and going full separation from association with the "revisionists".
My understanding is that it will be referred back to Council for further deliberation – but no decision on what happens next has been made.
I’m not sure what else the BU could have done. One of the central pillars of Baptist belief – apart from the tradition of radical dissent – is congregational government. With each congregation deciding on these issues for themselves. You either accept that or you don’t.
Maybe the first thing your church could do is see whether the majority of the congregation feel this way – or it’s just a minority making a lot of noise.
There is never going to be a group of churches that your church entirely agrees with. It will boil down to what you’re willing to compromise on to be part of a wider group. Or whether you’re willing to go it alone if you can’t find a group to belong too.
The other may be an education piece on what the BU does. As well as the church being part of a group with the accountability that brings, it also means the church has access to wider expertise, a pool of ministers to draw on when looking to appoint, fellowship with others etc.
You also support smaller churches like mine who wouldn’t be able to have ministry without Home Mission. There are not polite words to respond to the idea that Home Mission churches aren’t properly evangelical. Which I assume is code for not properly Christian.
Plus there are a ton of practical things that leaving the BU would bring. Your church may own the manse, but it may not own the building(s) so if you left you’d lose those. Would you be able to survive financially if you met in a school or do you rely on revenue from hall rental? If you have a minister, they will have to decide if they want to stay– which could risk their BU accreditation – or move on. (Those are the ones off the top of my head, there will be others).
Many advocating leaving the BU won’t have thought about any of these – and may not like some of them. There’s an old Spanish proverb which I paraphrase as ”Take what you want. And pay for it.”.
[ETA: There is no good outcome. You can stay. You can leave and go it alone - which means doing everything the BU currently does yourselves. You can create a new group with like-minded churches - and recreate the BU together from scratch.
A single church or smaller associations will be weaker than what we already have. It's particularly hard on the smaller BU churches which rely on the larger ones].
1. My understanding is that it will be referred back to Council for further deliberation – but no decision on what happens next has been made.
2. I’m not sure what else the BU could have done. One of the central pillars of Baptist belief – apart from the tradition of radical dissent – is congregational government. With each congregation deciding on these issues for themselves. You either accept that or you don’t.
1. That's my understanding too - in the sense that it will be referred back for deliberation. But there's a tension here: given point 2 below, who are the BU Council (unelected and unrepresentative) to presume to decide on what a church meeting (representative and called) may do or not do?
In practice, I think a decision has been made: we're kicking it into the long grass or deciding to change or deciding to stay the same.
2. Not exactly the freedom it seems. The Declaration of Principle was set up when there was common ground in most Baptist Churches on matters of doctrinal belief. This blows it wide open as some would argue that to decide in favour of the proposed changes (and their implications), is to make a decision against the historic position of the church on a matter of principle not practice. By allowing the change the BU Council is effectively creating the circumstances for schism.
The big question is not what holds us but what may form the basis for separation. This is the core issue of trying to balance the authority of the local church working within a denominational structure. Increasingly many BU churches know little or perhaps even care less about the BU. For them, it's there when needed and that's it. It has implications for Home Mission of course but i wonder whether the drive to localism is the biggest cause of waning support.
I agree that there perhaps needs to be more education in the churches about/from BUGB but they need to sharpen their act IMHO. Try and avoid coming across as a hierarchy!
The issues of property, accreditation are there, true, but all can be overcome as they have been - and are - being done at the moment.
The Declaration of Principle was set up when there was common ground in most Baptist Churches on matters of doctrinal belief. This blows it wide open as some would argue that to decide in favour of the proposed changes (and their implications), is to make a decision against the historic position of the church on a matter of principle not practice.
Is that really true, though? It was first promulgated in 1873 (and revised a few times since). A century before quite a number of Baptist churches had become Unitarian; somr reverted to orthodoxy while others didn't. And only 15 years after the DoP was first formulated Spurgeon claimed that the Baptists were "downgrading" on vital matters of doctrine (see tinyurl.com/2p8atazt). So controversy is nothing new.
The issues of how decisions are made at Council and by the Core Leadership Team - indeed, of how members are appointed to these bodies and so become, ipso facto, a heirachy - is a tricky one. By their very nature, Council, Synods and Committees tend to attract certain kinds of people; equally, the majority of "ordinary church members" would not wish to be part of them nor have the time to be. I think it's impossible for them to be truly representative. Equally it's only "keen" people who go to Assembly - even if proper debate were possible in such a large gathering, it would be impossible to draw it to a meaningful conclusion, at least within the contraints of a reasonable time limit.
Lots to unpack here. Let’s hope I can do it justice.
1. That's my understanding too - in the sense that it will be referred back for deliberation. But there's a tension here: given point 2 below, who are the BU Council (unelected and unrepresentative) to presume to decide on what a church meeting (representative and called) may do or not do?
In practice, I think a decision has been made: we're kicking it into the long grass or deciding to change or deciding to stay the same.
Aren’t you doing exactly the same? You’re telling the wider church that if they don’t agree you can’t be in fellowship with them. Ignoring their rights as congregation to decide about these things.
2. Not exactly the freedom it seems. The Declaration of Principle was set up when there was common ground in most Baptist Churches on matters of doctrinal belief. This blows it wide open as some would argue that to decide in favour of the proposed changes (and their implications), is to make a decision against the historic position of the church on a matter of principle not practice. By allowing the change the BU Council is effectively creating the circumstances for schism.
The big question is not what holds us but what may form the basis for separation. This is the core issue of trying to balance the authority of the local church working within a denominational structure. Increasingly many BU churches know little or perhaps even care less about the BU. For them, it's there when needed and that's it. It has implications for Home Mission of course but i wonder whether the drive to localism is the biggest cause of waning support.
The BU Council hasn’t actually decided anything yet. Why pre-empt their decision?
It’s less about localism, more about seeing churches in isolation rather than part of a whole. The larger, more well off churches are less interested in the BU. Until they need / want something. Which is part of the education piece I mentioned in my pervious post. The smaller or Home Mission funded churches tend to be more supportive of the BU because they need them more and are aware of the benefits.
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.
You’re assuming that nothing will change after doing the thing – which strikes me as being completely wrong. Push that button and you won't end up with the church you have now. People don’t just get over stuff like that. Some stay, others find other churches whilst others drift away because if that’s Christianity they’re not interested. Sure, you’ll get new people, but you may not.
There is no good outcome, just a series of crap ones that you get to live with afterwards and take responsibility for.
Lots to unpack here. Let’s hope I can do it justice.
1. That's my understanding too - in the sense that it will be referred back for deliberation. But there's a tension here: given point 2 below, who are the BU Council (unelected and unrepresentative) to presume to decide on what a church meeting (representative and called) may do or not do?
In practice, I think a decision has been made: we're kicking it into the long grass or deciding to change or deciding to stay the same.
1. Aren’t you doing exactly the same? You’re telling the wider church that if they don’t agree you can’t be in fellowship with them. Ignoring their rights as congregation to decide about these things.
2. Not exactly the freedom it seems. The Declaration of Principle was set up when there was common ground in most Baptist Churches on matters of doctrinal belief. This blows it wide open as some would argue that to decide in favour of the proposed changes (and their implications), is to make a decision against the historic position of the church on a matter of principle not practice. By allowing the change the BU Council is effectively creating the circumstances for schism.
The big question is not what holds us but what may form the basis for separation. This is the core issue of trying to balance the authority of the local church working within a denominational structure. Increasingly many BU churches know little or perhaps even care less about the BU. For them, it's there when needed and that's it. It has implications for Home Mission of course but i wonder whether the drive to localism is the biggest cause of waning support.
2. The BU Council hasn’t actually decided anything yet. Why pre-empt their decision?
3. It’s less about localism, more about seeing churches in isolation rather than part of a whole. The larger, more well off churches are less interested in the BU. Until they need / want something. Which is part of the education piece I mentioned in my pervious post. The smaller or Home Mission funded churches tend to be more supportive of the BU because they need them more and are aware of the benefits.
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.
You’re assuming that nothing will change after doing the thing – which strikes me as being completely wrong. Push that button and you won't end up with the church you have now. People don’t just get over stuff like that. Some stay, others find other churches whilst others drift away because if that’s Christianity they’re not interested. Sure, you’ll get new people, but you may not.
There is no good outcome, just a series of crap ones that you get to live with afterwards and take responsibility for.
1. Thanks - I don't feel I'm telling anyone anything but trying to point out the fault lines we've ignored for years. There are two opposing perspectives in the BU - localised government and central direction (some would say control). I can't see anything that can continue to hold this together: the "futures" project hasn't worked and may have made it worse.
What hasn't helped is IMHO the sense in which the focus has been drawn more to new churches, church plants, missional communities et al whilst sidelining those churches who are now called "traditional" many of which are far from that. The feeling is that BUGB only wants such churches for their BU cash for Home Mission.
I would affirm that every congregation has the right to decide whatever it likes but, by the same token, such decisions come with consequences as rights and responsibilities always sit together. If a church makes a decision then the consequences of that have to be considered by those who associate or work with that church. If the decision takes away a bit of common ground - ie a matter of principle - then both churches have to decide in integrity and honesty, the basis of how they might continue in relationship. For some decisions the consequence will be, with great reluctance, a decision not to relate in the same way as before and for issues that a congregation see as central to their understanding of faith, it may mean separation
(By the way I have worked locally, regionally and nationally to seek to maintain the integrity of the church meeting as the driving point in local church life. It's an uphill battle esp when a recent past president runs the church through elders and the members are "informed" not consulted.
2. Formally perhaps not but the trajectory is only in one direction. Rarely, if ever, do such processes stop or reverse. It needs to be seen to conclusion.
3. I agree that the larger churches aren't interested much in the BU. They used, for example, to settle ministers off the grid through their own networks. Some have their own reasons for doing this - others are increasingly hacked off by BUGB seeing them as cash cows. There is also unfortunately - and this I don't agree with - an attitude amongst some who say "what am i getting for my giving ..... and wouldn't it be more effective elsewhere eg locally?"
It's rank consumerism and a knee jerk reaction but it happens and we are all more the poorer for it in every way.
4. I don't think I am assuming (in what I wrote) that nothing will happen after any decision. There are consequences here just as there are in decisions made at local level. There's pain now and pain going forward and, as you rightly say, no good outcome. Mind you, mileage will vary on the definition of a good outcome - a change? Stay the same? Decide nothing? Be more restrictive? All of these will be good outcomes for some.
No church or denomination that has begun the journey to revise their view on this issue has become more conservative or maintained the status quo. There are casualties on all sides and some will leave all church as a result. In the CofE some already have.
I've been around for a long time now and and are much much closer to the end of many journeys than I am the beginning. I've seen many good and bad decisions made in church and elsewhere, all of which affect the lives of others. Some changes I've welcomed, others I have despaired of. All have had consequences and this one will be just the same. All we can pray for is grace and the ability to find some kind of common ground.
Personally I don't think that Declaration of Principle is strong enough to hold things together.
EM, you know that you and I aren't at the same place on quite a few issues. But thank you for your considered comments.
I wonder though how much they are specific to BUGB? I think, for instance, that the tension between "local" and "central", the emphasis on new and missional leading to more traditional churches feeling sidelined, the feeling by some congregations that they are being used as "cash cows" for other projects, the unrepresentative nature of synodical bodies and the "what are we getting for our giving" question - these are common to many denominations although in different proportions.
I also agree that none the denominatons I can think of that have started down the path of discussing sexuality have ended up affirming a conservative position - although perhaps some have (the FIEC, perhaps?). So I would largely agree with your ananysis, but wonder if BUGB, with its congregationalist polity, is in fact better equipped to weather the current storms than some other groupings.
I also agree that none the denominations I can think of that have started down the path of discussing sexuality have ended up affirming a conservative position
Would it be too naughty suggest that if one is willing to actually discuss same sex relationships seriously the affirming conclusion is inevitable?
For some Christians such a suggestion would indeed be extremely naughty and a clear denial of Biblical truth. Clearly that's the feeling of the folk mentioned at the start of this thread, who feel they can't be part of a denomination which is likely to come to some kind of compromise on the matter. (Inter alia, I guess that there must be some Christians who are unhappy to be part of a mixed grouping in which others deny the validity of same-sec relationships).
For some Christians such a suggestion would indeed be extremely naughty and a clear denial of Biblical truth. Clearly that's the feeling of the folk mentioned at the start of this thread, who feel they can't be part of a denomination which is likely to come to some kind of compromise on the matter. (Inter alia, I guess that there must be some Christians who are unhappy to be part of a mixed grouping in which others deny the validity of same-sec relationships).
Whichever way the decision goes (or doesn't happen, since inaction = action), there will be unhappy people. Depending on whether they see this as a point of principle which can't be conceded or as a point of practice over which to agree or disagree, will result in either significant schism or a slow trickle away.
There's no avoiding the debate nor the consequences.
For some Christians such a suggestion would indeed be extremely naughty and a clear denial of Biblical truth. Clearly that's the feeling of the folk mentioned at the start of this thread, who feel they can't be part of a denomination which is likely to come to some kind of compromise on the matter. (Inter alia, I guess that there must be some Christians who are unhappy to be part of a mixed grouping in which others deny the validity of same-sec relationships).
At the risk of getting the Purg hosts points for getting to tell off an ex-Admin for junior hosting, continuing this line of a discussion would also be extremely naughty. We're talking about deal breakers. Let's not get into specifics about what those deal breakers are.
Well, the OP was specifically about a church wanting to leave BUGB because it could not agree with what it saw as a compromise on SSM.
However the question did indeed ask us not to debate the issue per se but to recommend a grouping which the church might join - a question which I think has been answered by us , "There actually isn't one which will dot all your is and cross all your ts".
Don't rule out the Free Methodist Church too quickly. I believe that in the UK they are credo-baptist. They also have both male and female pastors, and have a very clear traditional stance on same-sex unions. They also appear to be 'mildly charismatic' and growing.
I also agree that none the denominatons I can think of that have started down the path of discussing sexuality have ended up affirming a conservative position - although perhaps some have (the FIEC, perhaps?).
The United Methodist Church, perhaps? Which, of course, is why there’s the current plan for it to split.
And there was conservative takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention in the ‘80s, though that may be considered preemptive rather than reacting to sexuality discussions. Discussions about LBGTQ+ people in the church was definitely going on in my denominations by that time, but I’m not sure how much a part of the conversation it was in the SBC. My impression is that the conservative takeover was intended in part to put an end to any such discussion before it could really get going.
Well, the OP was specifically about a church wanting to leave BUGB because it could not agree with what it saw as a compromise on SSM.
However the question did indeed ask us not to debate the issue per se but to recommend a grouping which the church might join - a question which I think has been answered by us , "There actually isn't one which will dot all your is and cross all your ts".
You're right - there is no group you can join that won't have something you don't agree with.
TBF, the Council hasn't even started discussions yet, let alone come to a conclusion. Unless the make-up has changed dramatically since the last time they discussed it, there may not be a major change.
For some churches, that may not be enough, but for others it might be.
It's really hard to tell how things will turn out as I have no idea how many churches have put these issues to the meeting and voted on a policy. Or on next steps if they find themselves in disagreement with others.
Gosh, I didn't realise the Wesleyan Reform Church was still going. I've only come across it in Yorkshire.
From what little I know of it, I could see it as a potential fit for BUGB refugees.
It's a good while since I encountered Free Methodists too and they struck me as somewhat FIEC in tone and not particularly mildly charismatic. Perhaps they've changed.
A good while ago now - 20 years perhaps - I can remember some pundits predicting the emergence of new conservative evangelical groups as a reaction to the 'emergent' and arty/liberal crowd and to the charismatic evangelicals.
The suggestion was that some would be quite brittle and fundamentalist but that a kind of more flexible neo-evangelical thing would come to the fore.
I've no idea whether this has proven to be the case. I've heard that Baptist growth has plateaued but that some independent evangelical churches are growing, both conservative and charismatic.
Baptist in practice (i.e. congregational in structure and practising believers' baptism) but without the actual name above the door.
That's the one
Sounds good. The opening question, If we left the BU, where would we go? might not be the right place to start. Maybe more of end point, when you’re thinking about how to replace some of the things that you’d lost and how to move forward.
My starting questions would be .
Who owns the building(s)?. In most cases it’s the BU and the local Association although @ExclaimationMark implies this is being looked at. AFAIK, none of the Anglican churches managed to find a way to leave and take the buildings etc with them. Or find enough cash to buy the CofE out. So they stayed.
What will our minister do?. They may leave.
And, pensions. The BU pension scheme has a shortfall. The BU took on some of the liabilities that would normally sit with the employer (i.e. the church). There are circumstances when those liabilities revert back to the church – like being in interregnum for more than X years. Would leaving the BU be another? (I have no idea btw. Does anyone know?)
One thing the last few years has shown is that people aren’t always interested in detail when they really want to do something. The other thing it’s shown is ignoring those details comes back to bite you on the arse later.
And, pensions. The BU pension scheme has a shortfall. The BU took on some of the liabilities that would normally sit with the employer (i.e. the church). There are circumstances when those liabilities revert back to the church – like being in interregnum for more than X years. Would leaving the BU be another? (I have no idea btw. Does anyone know?)
I don't know; however if a minister, a member of the BU pension fund were to leave, and the church had no intention of calling another such, this would I think trigger a "cessation event", unless the church's share of the deficit had already been paid. See: https://tinyurl.com/2b5tuxfx
My last church unwittingly fell foul of this (because the legislation was retrospective) as it was Baptist and URC and my predecessor wasn't Baptist. After I moved on they took the bull by the horns and paid up around £60k to "buy themselves out".
My present church was chary about calling me as they'd had a similar issue although with a smaller call on funds; I was able to reassure them that my ultimate departure wouldn't cause a repeat problem.
(I suspect the Shipmates may not be thrilled by this somewhat arcane discussion!)
I'm not a Baptist. I'm CofE which is pretty hopeless at dealing with differences of opinion. All the same, looking at the Declaration of Principle on the BU website,
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.
it strikes me that,
It's up to each congregation to decide for itself what its line is on this.
The BU has neither power nor authority to tell any congregation what that line ought to be.
No congregation has either power or authority to tell any other congregation what that line ought to be.
No congregation has either power or authority to insist that either the BU or any other congregation takes the same line as it does.
The issue that is troubling your congregation has neither a direct nor a controversial bearing on paras 2 or 3 of the Declaration.
That strikes me as a really valuable and good position, worth fighting for.
Even if either your congregation or the BU thinks it has a better understanding of what Jesus's view is on this or any other particular issue than the other, it strikes me that both sides are obliged by the Declaration to accept the others' interpretation in the context of the other's administration. That is so, even when in comes to accepting interpretations where either party regards the other as bigoted or wrong. Otherwise, either the congregation or the BU isn't being true to Baptist principles.
Otherwise, one side or the other is adopting some variant of the position that Jesus died only for those who agree with me/us.
I have to say, that as a non-Baptist, if both the BU and your congregation are able to negotiate this on this issue, and without splitting, maintain fellowship in difference, I'd regard that as a far more valuable testimony for Jesus Christ than maintaining the doctrinal or connexional rectitude of either position could be. Would that the ecclesiastical household I'm a member of could achieve this. At the moment, it appears to be putting a huge amount of effort into cantankerously failing to do so in ways that seem designed to dissatisfy the self righteously cantankerous on both sides.
That's very much my understanding, but others may see things differently. What complicates matters is that churches are ostensibly in a "covenant relationship" with each other, linked together in Associations and a National Union. There is also a national Council; a number of people including myself objected when, some years ago, it strongly encouraged churches to keep to a traditional understanding of marriage: whether one agreed with that doctrinal position or not, Council seemed to be overstepping its mark vis-a-vis the congregational principle.
That's very much my understanding, but others may see things differently. What complicates matters is that churches are ostensibly in a "covenant relationship" with each other, linked together in Associations and a National Union. There is also a national Council; a number of people including myself objected when, some years ago, it strongly encouraged churches to keep to a traditional understanding of marriage: whether one agreed with that doctrinal position or not, Council seemed to be overstepping its mark vis-a-vis the congregational principle.
The same would be true if the council recommended any change.
I'm not a Baptist. I'm CofE which is pretty hopeless at dealing with differences of opinion. All the same, looking at the Declaration of Principle on the BU website,
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.
The issue that is troubling your congregation has neither a direct nor a controversial bearing on paras 2 or 3 of the Declaration.
I'm not convinced this is true: the Declaration doesn't allow for anything and everything to be to be decided that we have all to accept and remain in covenant relationship. Otherwise it's as bad as the BU Council deciding everything but it now comes down to (potentially) one fellowship deciding on behalf of all.
The declaration was set up within an evangelical understanding of scripture where/when the issue at stake was considered as having only one interpretation. This is stretching the Declaration to elasticity and beyond.
Baptist in practice (i.e. congregational in structure and practising believers' baptism) but without the actual name above the door.
That's the one
Sounds good. The opening question, If we left the BU, where would we go? might not be the right place to start. Maybe more of end point, when you’re thinking about how to replace some of the things that you’d lost and how to move forward.
My starting questions would be .
Who owns the building(s)?. In most cases it’s the BU and the local Association although @ExclaimationMark implies this is being looked at. AFAIK, none of the Anglican churches managed to find a way to leave and take the buildings etc with them. Or find enough cash to buy the CofE out. So they stayed.
What will our minister do?. They may leave.
And, pensions. The BU pension scheme has a shortfall. The BU took on some of the liabilities that would normally sit with the employer (i.e. the church). There are circumstances when those liabilities revert back to the church – like being in interregnum for more than X years. Would leaving the BU be another? (I have no idea btw. Does anyone know?)
One thing the last few years has shown is that people aren’t always interested in detail when they really want to do something. The other thing it’s shown is ignoring those details comes back to bite you on the arse later.
It's not all as it seems IME
Buildings Not the sticking point it seems. Faced with an empty building BUGB are more likely to rent it out to the leavers than sell or leave empty. There's precedent - which can be a strong argument - for a church remaining in the building but not in the BU. There's also a strong argument that as the church fellowship presumably paid for and raised the building, then it is theirs. The trusteeship is then merely management required by law vs ownership: a useful conceit if you like.
Pensions Depends. There's a period of grace which can be extended over some time. The length and nature is untested in law as at today - as is much around these shortfall schemes. Allegedly the scheme is back in balance by 2026 in which case the shortfall doesn't kick in. To my knowledge - and I contested this with the administrators of the scheme very recently - what they say is a best interpretation of the legislation. They are very wary of a court case to challenge lest one of two skeletons emerge (such as who/why the admin was sent offshore a few years ago).
As for being bitten, the churches who left a while back seem to be doing ok ... the bright ones do the groundwork first to see what is permissible, find the grey areas which are BUGB procedures (not statutory requirements) and push the latter.
Baptist in practice (i.e. congregational in structure and practising believers' baptism) but without the actual name above the door.
That's the one
Sounds good. The opening question, If we left the BU, where would we go? might not be the right place to start. Maybe more of end point, when you’re thinking about how to replace some of the things that you’d lost and how to move forward.
My starting questions would be .
Who owns the building(s)?. In most cases it’s the BU and the local Association although @ExclaimationMark implies this is being looked at. AFAIK, none of the Anglican churches managed to find a way to leave and take the buildings etc with them. Or find enough cash to buy the CofE out. So they stayed.
What will our minister do?. They may leave.
And, pensions. The BU pension scheme has a shortfall. The BU took on some of the liabilities that would normally sit with the employer (i.e. the church). There are circumstances when those liabilities revert back to the church – like being in interregnum for more than X years. Would leaving the BU be another? (I have no idea btw. Does anyone know?)
One thing the last few years has shown is that people aren’t always interested in detail when they really want to do something. The other thing it’s shown is ignoring those details comes back to bite you on the arse later.
It's not all as it seems IME
Buildings Not the sticking point it seems. Faced with an empty building BUGB are more likely to rent it out to the leavers than sell or leave empty. There's precedent - which can be a strong argument - for a church remaining in the building but not in the BU. There's also a strong argument that as the church fellowship presumably paid for and raised the building, then it is theirs. The trusteeship is then merely management required by law vs ownership: a useful conceit if you like.
Pensions Depends. There's a period of grace which can be extended over some time. The length and nature is untested in law as at today - as is much around these shortfall schemes. Allegedly the scheme is back in balance by 2026 in which case the shortfall doesn't kick in. To my knowledge - and I contested this with the administrators of the scheme very recently - what they say is a best interpretation of the legislation. They are very wary of a court case to challenge lest one of two skeletons emerge (such as who/why the admin was sent offshore a few years ago).
As for being bitten, the churches who left a while back seem to be doing ok ... the bright ones do the groundwork first to see what is permissible, find the grey areas which are BUGB procedures (not statutory requirements) and push the latter.
As earlier, I'm not a Baptist so this isn't my fight. But before relying on disputed arguments (which is what we have here - Tubbs says one thing, ExclamationMark another) about what the law requires I'd strongly advise talking to neutral people who do know what the law actually means.
Buildings Not the sticking point it seems. Faced with an empty building BUGB are more likely to rent it out to the leavers than sell or leave empty. There's precedent - which can be a strong argument - for a church remaining in the building but not in the BU.
I think that Gilcomston South church (Aberdeen) did this with the CofS - unlike St George's Tron (Glasgow) who had a Big Row.
Buildings Not the sticking point it seems. Faced with an empty building BUGB are more likely to rent it out to the leavers than sell or leave empty. There's precedent - which can be a strong argument - for a church remaining in the building but not in the BU.
I think that Gilcomston South church (Aberdeen) did this with the CofS - unlike St George's Tron (Glasgow) who had a Big Row.
It may depend on where the church is, whether it could be sold for redevelopment and how rude people are as they leave. IIRC, after the CofE sold a defunct church building in the city of London to an Orthodox congregation at a knock down rate, St Helen's in Bishopsgate asked for a similar deal and got told to do one.
St Michael and All the Angels in Croydon left wholesale and moved into the local RC church. They were heartbroken to discover the CofE got to keep all the vestments and plate etc due to the wording used when they were donated.
The simple answer is that no one really knows what will happen. And finding out is likely to involve lawyers and court. Which is never good.
Buildings Not the sticking point it seems. Faced with an empty building BUGB are more likely to rent it out to the leavers than sell or leave empty. There's precedent - which can be a strong argument - for a church remaining in the building but not in the BU.
I think that Gilcomston South church (Aberdeen) did this with the CofS - unlike St George's Tron (Glasgow) who had a Big Row.
It may depend on where the church is, whether it could be sold for redevelopment and how rude people are as they leave. IIRC, after the CofE sold a defunct church building in the city of London to an Orthodox congregation at a knock down rate, St Helen's in Bishopsgate asked for a similar deal and got told to do one.
St Michael and All the Angels in Croydon left wholesale and moved into the local RC church. They were heartbroken to discover the CofE got to keep all the vestments and plate etc due to the wording used when they were donated.
The simple answer is that no one really knows what will happen. And finding out is likely to involve lawyers and court. Which is never good.
Yes - one CofE church I know was going to be sold as it was redundant. However 20 years down the line it hasn't been - the diocese discovered a legal hiccup in that the proceeds had to be given to a family whose ancestors had funded and built the church in the 19th century.
BUGB might well be in trouble if it rents out the property to a congregation that left it. It is a charity and it would have to make the case that that is either financially the best return it could get on the building or it is in line with its charitable aims.
BUGB might well be in trouble if it rents out the property to a congregation that left it. It is a charity and it would have to make the case that that is either financially the best return it could get on the building or it is in line with its charitable aims.
There's an awful lot around charity law (such as it now is) that has never been tested in court, if push ever came to shove.
The position is such that a the current trust structure (managing, holding, ultimate trusts) is a legal way of a church being able to hold property.
Many (?most) baptist churches are built by and paid for through individual congregations, even if they obtain grant money or loans to do it. I rather suspect that confers an ownership in equity, if not in law. You could argue - I think with some sense - that since the church paid for it all and ran it all, then BUGB's involvement is a legal nicety and the church can do what they like with the building. It is theirs and they haven't exactly given it to BUGB as there hasn't been any consideration (ie money paid).
BUGB might well be in trouble if it rents out the property to a congregation that left it. It is a charity and it would have to make the case that that is either financially the best return it could get on the building or it is in line with its charitable aims.
There's an awful lot around charity law (such as it now is) that has never been tested in court, if push ever came to shove.
The position is such that a the current trust structure (managing, holding, ultimate trusts) is a legal way of a church being able to hold property.
Many (?most) baptist churches are built by and paid for through individual congregations, even if they obtain grant money or loans to do it. I rather suspect that confers an ownership in equity, if not in law. You could argue - I think with some sense - that since the church paid for it all and ran it all, then BUGB's involvement is a legal nicety and the church can do what they like with the building. It is theirs and they haven't exactly given it to BUGB as there hasn't been any consideration (ie money paid).
When a local BU church * sold it's premises recently, the congregation got the proceeds from the manse but the money from the building went to the BU.
It's the legal niceties that will count - whatever they are.
If there are churches considering leaving the BU in response to a yet unmade Council decision, I hope they have taken legal advice.
* Grade two listed, needed a ton of specialist work which the congregation couldn't afford. It's going to be a hotel.
@Tubbs - What perhaps would be germane to ask here is if the congregation is still meeting and, if so, what arrangements have been put in place to facilitate this? I ask because, in the OP, we were asked to think of a church that was considering leaving BUGB but we've perhaps got too tied up in the legal and financial niceties. There would be nothing to stop them simply resigning BUGB membership, walking out of the building en bloc and starting a new church, with whatever affiliation they think suits them (although we here doubt that a "perfect fit" actually exists).
Comments
Coming back to Anna_Baptist's church. I can understand their dilemma. I would expect, though, given Baptist polity that individual congregations would remain free to make their own decisions on these issues, but then the interdependence thing means that they might consider themselves to be subsidising or supporting unacceptable behaviour elsewhere.
If EM is right and around 35% of BUGB churches would see a traditional approach to these issues as a non-negotiable, then that's potentially a sizeable constituency to draw on if they did want to set up a new association or confederation of the like minded.
Splits and schisms are never neat and always messy, though, with collateral damage on all sides.
Sooner or later any new confederation will split over some issue or other.
Ahem, but yes, I largely agree. Throw in congregational government as well, and it's a Venn diagram with very few people in the middle.
I forgot you'd mentioned that.
Yeah, but there's a difference between being anti-LGBT+* and being so anti that you want to separate yourself from more progressive congregations - as we see with GAFCON, as opposed to the many evangelical congregations in the CofE who are anti-LGBT+ (no doubt claiming to be welcoming) but are not GAFCON
I think it's that intersection that's quite a small set.
*I'm sure they, or at least many of them, wouldn't describe themselves that way but I think I'm in reasonably good company if I say that if you're not for, you're against
I think I addressed this in my reply to Pomona - there's a difference between "having reservations" and going full separation from association with the "revisionists".
I’m not sure what else the BU could have done. One of the central pillars of Baptist belief – apart from the tradition of radical dissent – is congregational government. With each congregation deciding on these issues for themselves. You either accept that or you don’t.
Maybe the first thing your church could do is see whether the majority of the congregation feel this way – or it’s just a minority making a lot of noise.
There is never going to be a group of churches that your church entirely agrees with. It will boil down to what you’re willing to compromise on to be part of a wider group. Or whether you’re willing to go it alone if you can’t find a group to belong too.
The other may be an education piece on what the BU does. As well as the church being part of a group with the accountability that brings, it also means the church has access to wider expertise, a pool of ministers to draw on when looking to appoint, fellowship with others etc.
You also support smaller churches like mine who wouldn’t be able to have ministry without Home Mission. There are not polite words to respond to the idea that Home Mission churches aren’t properly evangelical. Which I assume is code for not properly Christian.
Plus there are a ton of practical things that leaving the BU would bring. Your church may own the manse, but it may not own the building(s) so if you left you’d lose those. Would you be able to survive financially if you met in a school or do you rely on revenue from hall rental? If you have a minister, they will have to decide if they want to stay– which could risk their BU accreditation – or move on. (Those are the ones off the top of my head, there will be others).
Many advocating leaving the BU won’t have thought about any of these – and may not like some of them. There’s an old Spanish proverb which I paraphrase as ”Take what you want. And pay for it.”.
[ETA: There is no good outcome. You can stay. You can leave and go it alone - which means doing everything the BU currently does yourselves. You can create a new group with like-minded churches - and recreate the BU together from scratch.
A single church or smaller associations will be weaker than what we already have. It's particularly hard on the smaller BU churches which rely on the larger ones].
Good luck.
1. That's my understanding too - in the sense that it will be referred back for deliberation. But there's a tension here: given point 2 below, who are the BU Council (unelected and unrepresentative) to presume to decide on what a church meeting (representative and called) may do or not do?
In practice, I think a decision has been made: we're kicking it into the long grass or deciding to change or deciding to stay the same.
2. Not exactly the freedom it seems. The Declaration of Principle was set up when there was common ground in most Baptist Churches on matters of doctrinal belief. This blows it wide open as some would argue that to decide in favour of the proposed changes (and their implications), is to make a decision against the historic position of the church on a matter of principle not practice. By allowing the change the BU Council is effectively creating the circumstances for schism.
The big question is not what holds us but what may form the basis for separation. This is the core issue of trying to balance the authority of the local church working within a denominational structure. Increasingly many BU churches know little or perhaps even care less about the BU. For them, it's there when needed and that's it. It has implications for Home Mission of course but i wonder whether the drive to localism is the biggest cause of waning support.
I agree that there perhaps needs to be more education in the churches about/from BUGB but they need to sharpen their act IMHO. Try and avoid coming across as a hierarchy!
The issues of property, accreditation are there, true, but all can be overcome as they have been - and are - being done at the moment.
The issues of how decisions are made at Council and by the Core Leadership Team - indeed, of how members are appointed to these bodies and so become, ipso facto, a heirachy - is a tricky one. By their very nature, Council, Synods and Committees tend to attract certain kinds of people; equally, the majority of "ordinary church members" would not wish to be part of them nor have the time to be. I think it's impossible for them to be truly representative. Equally it's only "keen" people who go to Assembly - even if proper debate were possible in such a large gathering, it would be impossible to draw it to a meaningful conclusion, at least within the contraints of a reasonable time limit.
Aren’t you doing exactly the same? You’re telling the wider church that if they don’t agree you can’t be in fellowship with them. Ignoring their rights as congregation to decide about these things.
The BU Council hasn’t actually decided anything yet. Why pre-empt their decision?
It’s less about localism, more about seeing churches in isolation rather than part of a whole. The larger, more well off churches are less interested in the BU. Until they need / want something. Which is part of the education piece I mentioned in my pervious post. The smaller or Home Mission funded churches tend to be more supportive of the BU because they need them more and are aware of the benefits.
You’re assuming that nothing will change after doing the thing – which strikes me as being completely wrong. Push that button and you won't end up with the church you have now. People don’t just get over stuff like that. Some stay, others find other churches whilst others drift away because if that’s Christianity they’re not interested. Sure, you’ll get new people, but you may not.
There is no good outcome, just a series of crap ones that you get to live with afterwards and take responsibility for.
1. Thanks - I don't feel I'm telling anyone anything but trying to point out the fault lines we've ignored for years. There are two opposing perspectives in the BU - localised government and central direction (some would say control). I can't see anything that can continue to hold this together: the "futures" project hasn't worked and may have made it worse.
What hasn't helped is IMHO the sense in which the focus has been drawn more to new churches, church plants, missional communities et al whilst sidelining those churches who are now called "traditional" many of which are far from that. The feeling is that BUGB only wants such churches for their BU cash for Home Mission.
I would affirm that every congregation has the right to decide whatever it likes but, by the same token, such decisions come with consequences as rights and responsibilities always sit together. If a church makes a decision then the consequences of that have to be considered by those who associate or work with that church. If the decision takes away a bit of common ground - ie a matter of principle - then both churches have to decide in integrity and honesty, the basis of how they might continue in relationship. For some decisions the consequence will be, with great reluctance, a decision not to relate in the same way as before and for issues that a congregation see as central to their understanding of faith, it may mean separation
(By the way I have worked locally, regionally and nationally to seek to maintain the integrity of the church meeting as the driving point in local church life. It's an uphill battle esp when a recent past president runs the church through elders and the members are "informed" not consulted.
2. Formally perhaps not but the trajectory is only in one direction. Rarely, if ever, do such processes stop or reverse. It needs to be seen to conclusion.
3. I agree that the larger churches aren't interested much in the BU. They used, for example, to settle ministers off the grid through their own networks. Some have their own reasons for doing this - others are increasingly hacked off by BUGB seeing them as cash cows. There is also unfortunately - and this I don't agree with - an attitude amongst some who say "what am i getting for my giving ..... and wouldn't it be more effective elsewhere eg locally?"
It's rank consumerism and a knee jerk reaction but it happens and we are all more the poorer for it in every way.
4. I don't think I am assuming (in what I wrote) that nothing will happen after any decision. There are consequences here just as there are in decisions made at local level. There's pain now and pain going forward and, as you rightly say, no good outcome. Mind you, mileage will vary on the definition of a good outcome - a change? Stay the same? Decide nothing? Be more restrictive? All of these will be good outcomes for some.
No church or denomination that has begun the journey to revise their view on this issue has become more conservative or maintained the status quo. There are casualties on all sides and some will leave all church as a result. In the CofE some already have.
I've been around for a long time now and and are much much closer to the end of many journeys than I am the beginning. I've seen many good and bad decisions made in church and elsewhere, all of which affect the lives of others. Some changes I've welcomed, others I have despaired of. All have had consequences and this one will be just the same. All we can pray for is grace and the ability to find some kind of common ground.
Personally I don't think that Declaration of Principle is strong enough to hold things together.
I wonder though how much they are specific to BUGB? I think, for instance, that the tension between "local" and "central", the emphasis on new and missional leading to more traditional churches feeling sidelined, the feeling by some congregations that they are being used as "cash cows" for other projects, the unrepresentative nature of synodical bodies and the "what are we getting for our giving" question - these are common to many denominations although in different proportions.
I also agree that none the denominatons I can think of that have started down the path of discussing sexuality have ended up affirming a conservative position - although perhaps some have (the FIEC, perhaps?). So I would largely agree with your ananysis, but wonder if BUGB, with its congregationalist polity, is in fact better equipped to weather the current storms than some other groupings.
None of which really gives an answer to the OP!
Would it be too naughty suggest that if one is willing to actually discuss same sex relationships seriously the affirming conclusion is inevitable?
Whichever way the decision goes (or doesn't happen, since inaction = action), there will be unhappy people. Depending on whether they see this as a point of principle which can't be conceded or as a point of practice over which to agree or disagree, will result in either significant schism or a slow trickle away.
There's no avoiding the debate nor the consequences.
At the risk of getting the Purg hosts points for getting to tell off an ex-Admin for junior hosting, continuing this line of a discussion would also be extremely naughty. We're talking about deal breakers. Let's not get into specifics about what those deal breakers are.
However the question did indeed ask us not to debate the issue per se but to recommend a grouping which the church might join - a question which I think has been answered by us , "There actually isn't one which will dot all your is and cross all your ts".
And there was conservative takeover in the Southern Baptist Convention in the ‘80s, though that may be considered preemptive rather than reacting to sexuality discussions. Discussions about LBGTQ+ people in the church was definitely going on in my denominations by that time, but I’m not sure how much a part of the conversation it was in the SBC. My impression is that the conservative takeover was intended in part to put an end to any such discussion before it could really get going.
You're right - there is no group you can join that won't have something you don't agree with.
TBF, the Council hasn't even started discussions yet, let alone come to a conclusion. Unless the make-up has changed dramatically since the last time they discussed it, there may not be a major change.
For some churches, that may not be enough, but for others it might be.
It's really hard to tell how things will turn out as I have no idea how many churches have put these issues to the meeting and voted on a policy. Or on next steps if they find themselves in disagreement with others.
From what little I know of it, I could see it as a potential fit for BUGB refugees.
It's a good while since I encountered Free Methodists too and they struck me as somewhat FIEC in tone and not particularly mildly charismatic. Perhaps they've changed.
A good while ago now - 20 years perhaps - I can remember some pundits predicting the emergence of new conservative evangelical groups as a reaction to the 'emergent' and arty/liberal crowd and to the charismatic evangelicals.
The suggestion was that some would be quite brittle and fundamentalist but that a kind of more flexible neo-evangelical thing would come to the fore.
I've no idea whether this has proven to be the case. I've heard that Baptist growth has plateaued but that some independent evangelical churches are growing, both conservative and charismatic.
I've no hard evidence to back this up.
Baptist in practice (i.e. congregational in structure and practising believers' baptism) but without the actual name above the door.
That's the one
Sounds good. The opening question, If we left the BU, where would we go? might not be the right place to start. Maybe more of end point, when you’re thinking about how to replace some of the things that you’d lost and how to move forward.
My starting questions would be .
Who owns the building(s)?. In most cases it’s the BU and the local Association although @ExclaimationMark implies this is being looked at. AFAIK, none of the Anglican churches managed to find a way to leave and take the buildings etc with them. Or find enough cash to buy the CofE out. So they stayed.
What will our minister do?. They may leave.
And, pensions. The BU pension scheme has a shortfall. The BU took on some of the liabilities that would normally sit with the employer (i.e. the church). There are circumstances when those liabilities revert back to the church – like being in interregnum for more than X years. Would leaving the BU be another? (I have no idea btw. Does anyone know?)
One thing the last few years has shown is that people aren’t always interested in detail when they really want to do something. The other thing it’s shown is ignoring those details comes back to bite you on the arse later.
My last church unwittingly fell foul of this (because the legislation was retrospective) as it was Baptist and URC and my predecessor wasn't Baptist. After I moved on they took the bull by the horns and paid up around £60k to "buy themselves out".
My present church was chary about calling me as they'd had a similar issue although with a smaller call on funds; I was able to reassure them that my ultimate departure wouldn't cause a repeat problem.
(I suspect the Shipmates may not be thrilled by this somewhat arcane discussion!)
Do you mean all of them? Perhaps some will stay?
it strikes me that,
- It's up to each congregation to decide for itself what its line is on this.
- The BU has neither power nor authority to tell any congregation what that line ought to be.
- No congregation has either power or authority to tell any other congregation what that line ought to be.
- No congregation has either power or authority to insist that either the BU or any other congregation takes the same line as it does.
The issue that is troubling your congregation has neither a direct nor a controversial bearing on paras 2 or 3 of the Declaration.That strikes me as a really valuable and good position, worth fighting for.
Even if either your congregation or the BU thinks it has a better understanding of what Jesus's view is on this or any other particular issue than the other, it strikes me that both sides are obliged by the Declaration to accept the others' interpretation in the context of the other's administration. That is so, even when in comes to accepting interpretations where either party regards the other as bigoted or wrong. Otherwise, either the congregation or the BU isn't being true to Baptist principles.
Otherwise, one side or the other is adopting some variant of the position that Jesus died only for those who agree with me/us.
I have to say, that as a non-Baptist, if both the BU and your congregation are able to negotiate this on this issue, and without splitting, maintain fellowship in difference, I'd regard that as a far more valuable testimony for Jesus Christ than maintaining the doctrinal or connexional rectitude of either position could be. Would that the ecclesiastical household I'm a member of could achieve this. At the moment, it appears to be putting a huge amount of effort into cantankerously failing to do so in ways that seem designed to dissatisfy the self righteously cantankerous on both sides.
It's a bit like TurquoiseTistic or BapTastic.
Otherwise, what others said.
The same would be true if the council recommended any change.
I'm not convinced this is true: the Declaration doesn't allow for anything and everything to be to be decided that we have all to accept and remain in covenant relationship. Otherwise it's as bad as the BU Council deciding everything but it now comes down to (potentially) one fellowship deciding on behalf of all.
The declaration was set up within an evangelical understanding of scripture where/when the issue at stake was considered as having only one interpretation. This is stretching the Declaration to elasticity and beyond.
It's not all as it seems IME
Buildings Not the sticking point it seems. Faced with an empty building BUGB are more likely to rent it out to the leavers than sell or leave empty. There's precedent - which can be a strong argument - for a church remaining in the building but not in the BU. There's also a strong argument that as the church fellowship presumably paid for and raised the building, then it is theirs. The trusteeship is then merely management required by law vs ownership: a useful conceit if you like.
Pensions Depends. There's a period of grace which can be extended over some time. The length and nature is untested in law as at today - as is much around these shortfall schemes. Allegedly the scheme is back in balance by 2026 in which case the shortfall doesn't kick in. To my knowledge - and I contested this with the administrators of the scheme very recently - what they say is a best interpretation of the legislation. They are very wary of a court case to challenge lest one of two skeletons emerge (such as who/why the admin was sent offshore a few years ago).
As for being bitten, the churches who left a while back seem to be doing ok ... the bright ones do the groundwork first to see what is permissible, find the grey areas which are BUGB procedures (not statutory requirements) and push the latter.
As earlier, I'm not a Baptist so this isn't my fight. But before relying on disputed arguments (which is what we have here - Tubbs says one thing, ExclamationMark another) about what the law requires I'd strongly advise talking to neutral people who do know what the law actually means.
It may depend on where the church is, whether it could be sold for redevelopment and how rude people are as they leave. IIRC, after the CofE sold a defunct church building in the city of London to an Orthodox congregation at a knock down rate, St Helen's in Bishopsgate asked for a similar deal and got told to do one.
St Michael and All the Angels in Croydon left wholesale and moved into the local RC church. They were heartbroken to discover the CofE got to keep all the vestments and plate etc due to the wording used when they were donated.
The simple answer is that no one really knows what will happen. And finding out is likely to involve lawyers and court. Which is never good.
There's an awful lot around charity law (such as it now is) that has never been tested in court, if push ever came to shove.
The position is such that a the current trust structure (managing, holding, ultimate trusts) is a legal way of a church being able to hold property.
Many (?most) baptist churches are built by and paid for through individual congregations, even if they obtain grant money or loans to do it. I rather suspect that confers an ownership in equity, if not in law. You could argue - I think with some sense - that since the church paid for it all and ran it all, then BUGB's involvement is a legal nicety and the church can do what they like with the building. It is theirs and they haven't exactly given it to BUGB as there hasn't been any consideration (ie money paid).
On the other hand, if they're letting for a commercial rent, it becomes irrelevant what the premises are being used for.
When a local BU church * sold it's premises recently, the congregation got the proceeds from the manse but the money from the building went to the BU.
It's the legal niceties that will count - whatever they are.
If there are churches considering leaving the BU in response to a yet unmade Council decision, I hope they have taken legal advice.
* Grade two listed, needed a ton of specialist work which the congregation couldn't afford. It's going to be a hotel.