@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).
In this case, they transferred to a BU church a few roads down.
You're right, there is nothing to stop a church resigning BU membership, leaving the building and starting again elsewhere. In practice, it's never that simple. Because people.
Indeed so! I visited a church many years ago in which there had been a row. This led to the Minister, most of the Deacons and a large chunk of the congregation leaving and setting up a new church in a hired hall down the road. The Church Secretary and a few older members were left to pick up what remained. Strangely enough the church, though small, is still open and seeking a Minister.
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.
I think if push really came to shove, the church in question would have every right to pursue a claim for the funds from the church unless they had signed something giving the right to all proceeds to the BU. As I say, this has never been tested but it it doesn't seem right that the BU can take the cash having not contributed in any way.
In the end it will be a legal question. But a trust deed typically will make the trustees owners who are required to allow beneficiaries to use the property in terms according to the trust. If the deed specifies affiliation to the BUGB then there’s a legal obligation not to allow its use for other purposes.
I think technically, in the circumstances, the trustees could apply to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme for it to be used for other purposes. That may not be feasible if the deed provides for the absence of an affiliated congregation by, say, specifying sale at best price with proceeds to go to, say, Home Mission Fund, or another fund intended (e.g.) to help churches with building or repairing places of worship.
Certainly there’s a local v. central issue, but there’s also a past donors v. present users question. Do the wishes of the present users who have maintained and run the building trump the intention of those in the past who presumably also maintained and ran it, but also dug deep to build it in the first place?
Of course the current argument is that the BUGB was made trustee with the intention that that would guarantee certain things about the church, and that by making certain decisions (if it does so) BUGB is then no longer guaranteeing those things. I suspect that would be a difficult argument to run as the Courts are very reluctant to judge theological questions.
I think if push really came to shove, the church in question would have every right to pursue a claim for the funds from the church unless they had signed something giving the right to all proceeds to the BU.
Many Church Constitutions include an Ultimate Reversion clause saying that sale proceeds will go to BUGB or the local Association. Whether that is legally binding is, I think, a different matter.
I don't know the details, but I assume that a large proportion of the congregation joined the Ordinariate or the mainstream RCC. The church remains a local parish church within the C of E, with two services on Sundays, and a daily Mass. The same happened with at least two churches in this Diocese, at about the same time.
It may be that the C of E is better able to absorb such shocks as these, which can happen (as it were) in the opposite direction, simply because there are more Anglican churches around, at least in urban areas. In Our Town, there are only two surviving Baptist churches, although both are healthy and flourishing.
Basically with Church of England churches the ‘owner’ is the incumbent for the time being. If the incumbent leaves the Church of England they cease to be an incumbent and cease to be the ‘owner’.
I think if push really came to shove, the church in question would have every right to pursue a claim for the funds from the church unless they had signed something giving the right to all proceeds to the BU.
Many Church Constitutions include an Ultimate Reversion clause saying that sale proceeds will go to BUGB or the local Association. Whether that is legally binding is, I think, a different matter.
The church in question was totally fine with how the funds were divided up.
My best guess is many of the questions we’ve found in these particular weeds would be covered under property law rather than ecclesiastical or charity.
Some sections of the church have a real sense of exceptionalism. With people assuming that rules don’t apply to them because they’re a church and for reasons. The reasons usually being that they make no sense, aren’t fair or are stopping them doing the stuff. And that isn’t how things work.
I don't know the details, but I assume that a large proportion of the congregation joined the Ordinariate or the mainstream RCC. The church remains a local parish church within the C of E, with two services on Sundays, and a daily Mass. The same happened with at least two churches in this Diocese, at about the same time.
It may be that the C of E is better able to absorb such shocks as these, which can happen (as it were) in the opposite direction, simply because there are more Anglican churches around, at least in urban areas. In Our Town, there are only two surviving Baptist churches, although both are healthy and flourishing.
IIRC, the entire congregation and the Minister transferred to a mainstream RC. They kept the keys. They let themselves in each Sunday, borrowed some vestments etc, had their service then returned them afterwards. Until the locks were changed. Then it all kicked off in the local paper.
There were three Anglican churches within about 10 – 15 minutes of my old home. The Cathedral, the one with the Priest who ran off with all the money and St Michaels. St Michaels was the one you could smell from down the road if the wind was blowing in the right direction.
I think if push really came to shove, the church in question would have every right to pursue a claim for the funds from the church unless they had signed something giving the right to all proceeds to the BU.
Many Church Constitutions include an Ultimate Reversion clause saying that sale proceeds will go to BUGB or the local Association. Whether that is legally binding is, I think, a different matter.
Some sections of the church have a real sense of exceptionalism. With people assuming that rules don’t apply to them because they’re a church and for reasons. The reasons usually being that they make no sense, aren’t fair or are stopping them doing the stuff. And that isn’t how things work.
Unfortunately it is happening in the real world now and in the past certain things have been colluded with.
@Tubbs
Thanks for the info re Croydon (I went to a midday Mass there many aeons ago). Not an edifying story, and I don't think anything quite like that happened in our (neighbouring) Diocese. I know of at least two parishes where priest and a fair few people left, but AFAIK there was no question of trying to retain the building etc.
I was quoting from (or referring to) their current website, so one presumes that things have settled down somewhat since the rift.
@Tubbs
Thanks for the info re Croydon (I went to a midday Mass there many aeons ago). Not an edifying story, and I don't think anything quite like that happened in our (neighbouring) Diocese. I know of at least two parishes where priest and a fair few people left, but AFAIK there was no question of trying to retain the building etc.
I was quoting from (or referring to) their current website, so one presumes that things have settled down somewhat since the rift.
TBF, my knowledge was gathered from following the whole story in the local paper and it's a long time since I lived around there. I'm glad to hear that things have settled down.
Some disruption was caused by the two priests leaving parishes here for the Ordinariate, but, again, both churches survived, and are still flourishing (modestly - after all, this is the C of E!).
I think if push really came to shove, the church in question would have every right to pursue a claim for the funds from the church unless they had signed something giving the right to all proceeds to the BU.
Many Church Constitutions include an Ultimate Reversion clause saying that sale proceeds will go to BUGB or the local Association. Whether that is legally binding is, I think, a different matter.
Some sections of the church have a real sense of exceptionalism. With people assuming that rules don’t apply to them because they’re a church and for reasons. The reasons usually being that they make no sense, aren’t fair or are stopping them doing the stuff. And that isn’t how things work.
Unfortunately it is happening in the real world now and in the past certain things have been colluded with.
Colluded seems rather a harsh way of describing it. I read it as implying there was a deliberate attempt to deceive - or do something negative. Sometimes it's more people doing the best they can in the circumstances they're in.
I think if push really came to shove, the church in question would have every right to pursue a claim for the funds from the church unless they had signed something giving the right to all proceeds to the BU.
Many Church Constitutions include an Ultimate Reversion clause saying that sale proceeds will go to BUGB or the local Association. Whether that is legally binding is, I think, a different matter.
Some sections of the church have a real sense of exceptionalism. With people assuming that rules don’t apply to them because they’re a church and for reasons. The reasons usually being that they make no sense, aren’t fair or are stopping them doing the stuff. And that isn’t how things work.
Unfortunately it is happening in the real world now and in the past certain things have been colluded with.
Colluded seems rather a harsh way of describing it. I read it as implying there was a deliberate attempt to deceive - or do something negative. Sometimes it's more people doing the best they can in the circumstances they're in.
I suppose it's a bit harsh but when things happen and nothing is done about it (when it can be done), then it is concerning.
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.”.
My understanding is the BU have informally let it be known that they will be as generous as they can be with regards to buildings, pensions etc, should a church decide to leave.
I have no knowledge as to whether that is true (it would be nice if it is) - but the BU will have to keep within Charity Law if it seeks to make such arrangements with buildings, which could be a constraint.
It's interesting that this post has surfaced again, presumably because Baptist ministers are in the middle of a consultation about the possible change to rules, allowing them to be in same-sex partnerships.
Thing is though, there are Baptist ministers who are happy to perform same-sex weddings and churches which have in fact, after discussion, registered their buildings for this purpose. The denomination's Council isn't too keen on this but our church polity says that this kind of decision is to be made locally and that Council doesn't have the authority to say, "You can't do that". However the Ministerial Rules are decided by Council and apply nationally, so there's something of a tension here.
Personally I think it would be a shame if any church left the BU but that's for them to decide. The last time there was a bit of a mass exodus was when Churches Together In England was formed as - unlike the former Council of Churches - it included Roman Catholics and some Baptists weren't happy with that (I can't speak for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales).
I think it's unlikely the Council will change the ministerial rules. This is, of course, taking a stance that a minority will find unpalatable. If any churches leave it's likely to be those who'd find a home networking with Oasis, or in the URC
The last time there was a bit of a mass exodus was when Churches Together In England was formed as - unlike the former Council of Churches - it included Roman Catholics and some Baptists weren't happy with that (I can't speak for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales).
Where did the churches that left end up? And how were the arrangements for buildings/pensions etc managed?
I don't actually know, though I can think of two churches that have ended up in the FIEC. One is still in its original building, one isn't - although I think that the latter's move was not for legal or trust issues.
As for pensions etc - not a clue. However a BU minister can I think apply to continue on the Accredited List even though they aren't technically serving a BU church. What I don't know is how freely such a request is granted. Of course things might be different if the minister themself withdrew from the BU.
As for pensions etc - not a clue. However a BU minister can I think apply to continue on the Accredited List even though they aren't technically serving a BU church. What I don't know is how freely such a request is granted. Of course things might be different if the minister themself withdrew from the BU.
A minister leaving a qualifying office can apply for a leave of absence for a year (usually granted) but after that, if they aren't in a qualifying office they will be removed from the accredited list.
As the pensions are outsourced there is no reason to quit the scheme.
As for pensions etc - not a clue. However a BU minister can I think apply to continue on the Accredited List even though they aren't technically serving a BU church.
Presumably in those cases the non-BU church then makes some separate arrangement to pay into the pension fund?
Dunno! Might they have to perhaps open a private pension fund and combine the assets?
I've been around for long enough to have some of my pension in the old Defined Benefit scheme and the rest in the current Defined Contribution one. I will say that, at one point, I did consider moving over to the URC but the potential pension difficulties were one thing which dissuaded me - not that I really looked into them.
As for pensions etc - not a clue. However a BU minister can I think apply to continue on the Accredited List even though they aren't technically serving a BU church.
Presumably in those cases the non-BU church then makes some separate arrangement to pay into the pension fund?
The defined benefit part is closed, no more money paid in and it's managed (soon to be sold to another provider).
The defined contribution is basically a private scheme, members (and their employers) can keep paying in.
I grew up in a Baptist church that was FIEC, but I don’t know how they had arrived at that decision. It was a slightly quirky place which went through old-style Pentecostal phases and then backed off from them again. We used the Redemption Hymnal.
I don’t know if they are still FIEC as I haven’t been there for nearly 40 years, though they are actually only about 10 minutes’ walk from my current church.
That does sound unusual! I know a Baptist church which was part of the Grace Baptists but left because they didn't agree with "closed communion". I think they are now FIEC.
Nothing to do with the Baptist Church, but IIRC one of the issues that dissuaded some of the congregation at Our Place from joining the Ordinariate was the apparent impossibility of retaining the church building for their own exclusive use. Quite how they thought the half-dozen of them were going to be able to maintain it, I know not.
In the event, the little clique went off and joined the mainstream RC Church.
They would have had a problem with the legalities as well, I suspect. The Charity Commission may well have required the CofE to sell it to them at the highest possible price.
They would have had a problem with the legalities as well, I suspect. The Charity Commission may well have required the CofE to sell it to them at the highest possible price.
Indeed.
I don't know if the clique ever really thought the issues through, but I suspect not. As you say, the legalities would have been complex, possibly involving the amalgamation of parishes, which takes time...something which other denominations, I guess, don't have to face!
I grew up in a Baptist church that was FIEC, but I don’t know how they had arrived at that decision. It was a slightly quirky place which went through old-style Pentecostal phases and then backed off from them again. We used the Redemption Hymnal.
I don’t know if they are still FIEC as I haven’t been there for nearly 40 years, though they are actually only about 10 minutes’ walk from my current church.
I believe that redemption hymnal was a pentecostal book
Indeed. It features in “Oranges are not the only fruit”. A friend of mine was startled when I said I had a copy - he assumed it was a title invented by the author!
Personally I think it would be a shame if any church left the BU but that's for them to decide. The last time there was a bit of a mass exodus was when Churches Together In England was formed as - unlike the former Council of Churches - it included Roman Catholics and some Baptists weren't happy with that (I can't speak for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales).
Interesting. Do you have a link to a web page with details? I have not heard of this and thought the last Great Divide was when the General Secretary denied the Virgin Birth about 50 years ago.
Personally I think it would be a shame if any church left the BU but that's for them to decide. The last time there was a bit of a mass exodus was when Churches Together In England was formed as - unlike the former Council of Churches - it included Roman Catholics and some Baptists weren't happy with that (I can't speak for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales).
Interesting. Do you have a link to a web page with details? I have not heard of this and thought the last Great Divide was when the General Secretary denied the Virgin Birth about 50 years ago.
I thought the kerfuffle 50 years ago was over Christology. Denying the Virgin Birth would constitute a Christological issue, of course.
The way I heard it, somebody got a round of applause for declaring some kind of ancient heresy at a Baptist conference - Appolonarianism or Adoptionism perhaps - certainly some 'ism' or other.
Nothing new there. The Baptists have always been 'inconsistently orthodox' as I think the late Douglas McBain put it.
Reading about Christmas Evans, the North Walian Baptist evangelist, I was struck by how much of his time was spent combating one heresy or another - and I think he himself may have succumbed to an 'ism' for a short time before pulling himself out of it - I'm not sure which one, Sandemanianism or Sabellianism or some such.
The Baptists weren't alone in that, of course. The Independents and Presbyterians were also prone to unitarian tendencies and secessions from time to time.
And I'm sure there's been more of it within the Anglicans as the Established Church too, truth be told.
Whatever happens, I hope the Baptists here can hold things together. I've always felt that they have an important role as a kind of 'middle-ground' evangelicalism (although not all British Baptists are evangelical of course).
There's more to them than the following, of course, but they represent a helpful 're-entry level' to what I'd consider mainstream Protestant Christianity for people who've had their fingers burnt further out in the 'independent sector'.
I thought the kerfuffle 50 years ago was over Christology.
It was - Michael Taylor at the 1971 (I think) Assembly.
But there was also some (lesser) kerfuffle when the British Council of Churches became CTBI and Churches Together in England etc.
You're right about the tendency to heresy. Many C18 Baptists became Unitarian.
Of course Baptists (among other nonconformists) have been historically anti-credal - although some churches today love to "set out their stall" with a detailed doctrinal statement. The notion of only having a "Statement of Principle" has caused difficulties since its inception (though Baptists have existed for far longer): https://tinyurl.com/32sffebw
The notion of only having a "Statement of Principle" has caused difficulties since its inception (though Baptists have existed for far longer): https://tinyurl.com/32sffebw
Yeah, and there are other reasons for being wary of them; for the majority of congregants it ends up parking doctrine/theology into the same place as small print on insurance contracts, it's far too easy to accidentally include heterodox views and in some instances they've been used as a takeover mechanism for individuals/groups coming into congregational churches (less so in the UK than the US)
Disappointed? More rendered furious. I don't directly have a dog in the fight, but churches believing they have the right to decide that some are more loved by God than others make me vomit.
And the sex war continues. If churches redirected the energy and resources they waste on human sexuality, I'd wager a long list of actual problems could be solved, or at least reduced significantly. Unfortunately, on that score they're, well, impotent.
This was always going to be the likely outcome, but things are gradually shifting at places in BUGB, maybe not so much on the ministerial issue, but on same sex marriage in general. Last Sunday we had the Regional Minister preaching at our own church, (which is a BU/URC Ecumenical partnership) he's affirming of gay relationships, and he was telling me that his own home church in Essex is the only Baptist Union church in the Eastern Region currently registered for same sex marriages, but our own church is well on the way to perhaps becoming the next one (to be voted on at next Church Meeting). He was actually impressed (for want of a better word) that I'd been appointed to a leadership role (well a deacon) within the church while in a same sex relationship... it had never occurred to me that this was in any way noteworthy or unusual!
Comments
In this case, they transferred to a BU church a few roads down.
You're right, there is nothing to stop a church resigning BU membership, leaving the building and starting again elsewhere. In practice, it's never that simple. Because people.
I think if push really came to shove, the church in question would have every right to pursue a claim for the funds from the church unless they had signed something giving the right to all proceeds to the BU. As I say, this has never been tested but it it doesn't seem right that the BU can take the cash having not contributed in any way.
I've got a question out with a legal friend!
I think technically, in the circumstances, the trustees could apply to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme for it to be used for other purposes. That may not be feasible if the deed provides for the absence of an affiliated congregation by, say, specifying sale at best price with proceeds to go to, say, Home Mission Fund, or another fund intended (e.g.) to help churches with building or repairing places of worship.
Certainly there’s a local v. central issue, but there’s also a past donors v. present users question. Do the wishes of the present users who have maintained and run the building trump the intention of those in the past who presumably also maintained and ran it, but also dug deep to build it in the first place?
Of course the current argument is that the BUGB was made trustee with the intention that that would guarantee certain things about the church, and that by making certain decisions (if it does so) BUGB is then no longer guaranteeing those things. I suspect that would be a difficult argument to run as the Courts are very reluctant to judge theological questions.
I don't know the details, but I assume that a large proportion of the congregation joined the Ordinariate or the mainstream RCC. The church remains a local parish church within the C of E, with two services on Sundays, and a daily Mass. The same happened with at least two churches in this Diocese, at about the same time.
It may be that the C of E is better able to absorb such shocks as these, which can happen (as it were) in the opposite direction, simply because there are more Anglican churches around, at least in urban areas. In Our Town, there are only two surviving Baptist churches, although both are healthy and flourishing.
IOW, isn't the building (even if deserted and unstaffed) still the parish church, until such time as other arrangements are made?
Hmm. Yes. All very confusing - owned by the parish?
The church in question was totally fine with how the funds were divided up.
My best guess is many of the questions we’ve found in these particular weeds would be covered under property law rather than ecclesiastical or charity.
Some sections of the church have a real sense of exceptionalism. With people assuming that rules don’t apply to them because they’re a church and for reasons. The reasons usually being that they make no sense, aren’t fair or are stopping them doing the stuff. And that isn’t how things work.
IIRC, the entire congregation and the Minister transferred to a mainstream RC. They kept the keys. They let themselves in each Sunday, borrowed some vestments etc, had their service then returned them afterwards. Until the locks were changed. Then it all kicked off in the local paper.
There were three Anglican churches within about 10 – 15 minutes of my old home. The Cathedral, the one with the Priest who ran off with all the money and St Michaels. St Michaels was the one you could smell from down the road if the wind was blowing in the right direction.
@Tubbs
Thanks for the info re Croydon (I went to a midday Mass there many aeons ago). Not an edifying story, and I don't think anything quite like that happened in our (neighbouring) Diocese. I know of at least two parishes where priest and a fair few people left, but AFAIK there was no question of trying to retain the building etc.
I was quoting from (or referring to) their current website, so one presumes that things have settled down somewhat since the rift.
TBF, my knowledge was gathered from following the whole story in the local paper and it's a long time since I lived around there. I'm glad to hear that things have settled down.
Some disruption was caused by the two priests leaving parishes here for the Ordinariate, but, again, both churches survived, and are still flourishing (modestly - after all, this is the C of E!).
Colluded seems rather a harsh way of describing it. I read it as implying there was a deliberate attempt to deceive - or do something negative. Sometimes it's more people doing the best they can in the circumstances they're in.
I suppose it's a bit harsh but when things happen and nothing is done about it (when it can be done), then it is concerning.
My understanding is the BU have informally let it be known that they will be as generous as they can be with regards to buildings, pensions etc, should a church decide to leave.
It's interesting that this post has surfaced again, presumably because Baptist ministers are in the middle of a consultation about the possible change to rules, allowing them to be in same-sex partnerships.
Personally I think it would be a shame if any church left the BU but that's for them to decide. The last time there was a bit of a mass exodus was when Churches Together In England was formed as - unlike the former Council of Churches - it included Roman Catholics and some Baptists weren't happy with that (I can't speak for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales).
Where did the churches that left end up? And how were the arrangements for buildings/pensions etc managed?
As for pensions etc - not a clue. However a BU minister can I think apply to continue on the Accredited List even though they aren't technically serving a BU church. What I don't know is how freely such a request is granted. Of course things might be different if the minister themself withdrew from the BU.
A minister leaving a qualifying office can apply for a leave of absence for a year (usually granted) but after that, if they aren't in a qualifying office they will be removed from the accredited list.
As the pensions are outsourced there is no reason to quit the scheme.
Presumably in those cases the non-BU church then makes some separate arrangement to pay into the pension fund?
I've been around for long enough to have some of my pension in the old Defined Benefit scheme and the rest in the current Defined Contribution one. I will say that, at one point, I did consider moving over to the URC but the potential pension difficulties were one thing which dissuaded me - not that I really looked into them.
The defined benefit part is closed, no more money paid in and it's managed (soon to be sold to another provider).
The defined contribution is basically a private scheme, members (and their employers) can keep paying in.
I don’t know if they are still FIEC as I haven’t been there for nearly 40 years, though they are actually only about 10 minutes’ walk from my current church.
In the event, the little clique went off and joined the mainstream RC Church.
Indeed.
I don't know if the clique ever really thought the issues through, but I suspect not. As you say, the legalities would have been complex, possibly involving the amalgamation of parishes, which takes time...something which other denominations, I guess, don't have to face!
I believe that redemption hymnal was a pentecostal book
Interesting. Do you have a link to a web page with details? I have not heard of this and thought the last Great Divide was when the General Secretary denied the Virgin Birth about 50 years ago.
Sorry, I don't.
The way I heard it, somebody got a round of applause for declaring some kind of ancient heresy at a Baptist conference - Appolonarianism or Adoptionism perhaps - certainly some 'ism' or other.
Nothing new there. The Baptists have always been 'inconsistently orthodox' as I think the late Douglas McBain put it.
Reading about Christmas Evans, the North Walian Baptist evangelist, I was struck by how much of his time was spent combating one heresy or another - and I think he himself may have succumbed to an 'ism' for a short time before pulling himself out of it - I'm not sure which one, Sandemanianism or Sabellianism or some such.
The Baptists weren't alone in that, of course. The Independents and Presbyterians were also prone to unitarian tendencies and secessions from time to time.
And I'm sure there's been more of it within the Anglicans as the Established Church too, truth be told.
Whatever happens, I hope the Baptists here can hold things together. I've always felt that they have an important role as a kind of 'middle-ground' evangelicalism (although not all British Baptists are evangelical of course).
There's more to them than the following, of course, but they represent a helpful 're-entry level' to what I'd consider mainstream Protestant Christianity for people who've had their fingers burnt further out in the 'independent sector'.
But there was also some (lesser) kerfuffle when the British Council of Churches became CTBI and Churches Together in England etc.
You're right about the tendency to heresy. Many C18 Baptists became Unitarian.
Of course Baptists (among other nonconformists) have been historically anti-credal - although some churches today love to "set out their stall" with a detailed doctrinal statement. The notion of only having a "Statement of Principle" has caused difficulties since its inception (though Baptists have existed for far longer): https://tinyurl.com/32sffebw
Yeah, and there are other reasons for being wary of them; for the majority of congregants it ends up parking doctrine/theology into the same place as small print on insurance contracts, it's far too easy to accidentally include heterodox views and in some instances they've been used as a takeover mechanism for individuals/groups coming into congregational churches (less so in the UK than the US)
Good news for my Church, but I understand that some will be disappointed by the outcome.
Well there's a surprise (not!)
This was always going to be the likely outcome, but things are gradually shifting at places in BUGB, maybe not so much on the ministerial issue, but on same sex marriage in general. Last Sunday we had the Regional Minister preaching at our own church, (which is a BU/URC Ecumenical partnership) he's affirming of gay relationships, and he was telling me that his own home church in Essex is the only Baptist Union church in the Eastern Region currently registered for same sex marriages, but our own church is well on the way to perhaps becoming the next one (to be voted on at next Church Meeting). He was actually impressed (for want of a better word) that I'd been appointed to a leadership role (well a deacon) within the church while in a same sex relationship... it had never occurred to me that this was in any way noteworthy or unusual!
Doublethink, Admin