Introduction and Background. Over a year ago, five of our Baptist churches began a process to lock-in a denominational response on the issue of same-sex marriage and there followed a series of conversations among NSW Baptists around the state that is culminating in a special Assembly on Saturday 27 February to consider and vote on a group of motions submitted by those churches in accordance with appropriate procedures. The nature of the proposals, the way in which they have been presented and the implications for us and other Baptist churches have the potential to be both controversial and divisive and so in this statement, we have attempted to summarize what we see as the core issues and how we believe the matter should be addressed by the Assembly. Please feel free to ask questions of us as Elders for further clarification.
The Issue. The five churches have sought to affirm the “Baptist position” of marriage as being only between a man and a woman and, if the motions are adopted, they aim to lock the denomination into that specific position and to expose any church or pastor who publicly contradicts it to sanctions, namely “disassociation” in the case of churches or “de-accreditation” in the case of pastors. Without going into any of the micro-detail, the various motions to be presented to the Assembly on February 27 are aimed to give effect to that process and essentially to make compliance with the “approved position” mandatory for our churches. The key then becomes whether this single issue (or any other single issue) should require the Association to effectively throw out any church or pastor that doesn’t hold to it.
Why we should be concerned. Because the proposed process, complete with sanctions for non-compliance, can be seen as the beginnings of a fundamental change in the way in which we as Baptists deal with any controversial and potentially divisive issues of our day. Today, the debate is being driven by same-sex marriage… but there are many other issues on which we Baptists hold differing views and for the most part, agree to differ with one another respectfully and accommodating of our differences. But tomorrow, or next month, or next year, it could be another issue; the role of women in ministry, creation science and theology, open membership, authenticity of scripture and Biblical interpretations, to name just a few. And the model that is being proposed on 27 February could just as easily be used to force through acceptance of views on these and other issues that may not be universally shared, to enforce conformity and quell any form of dissent or informed discussion. Churches and pastors could find themselves being sanctioned on all kinds of issues for nothing more than expressing a differing but honestly held opinion (freedom of conscience). We do not believe that this is “the Baptist way”, and in itself, this cuts across two other absolutely key principles which have underpinned Baptist ministry down the ages, firstly “the freedom of conscience” and secondly “the autonomy of the local church”. Let’s consider and unpack that a bit further…
The debate this month purports to be about same-sex marriage and the “traditional” Christian view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, but the reality is that the motions go far beyond being simply a referendum of the same-sex marriage issue. The adding of sanctions as a means of enforcing compliance with a particular view takes us right to the heart of the core values of freedom of conscience (the right to form and express a view that differs from your peers) and autonomy of the local church (the right of each church to act and think independently and make its own decisions without being subject to any centralized authority). And by extension beyond that, it calls into question the whole decision-making relationship between local churches and the Association, whether we are a local entity making our own decisions, making our own appointments and managing our resources according to our constitution and the decisions of our members, or just an arm of “head office’, here to toe the party line, being told what we can do and think, when and how.
The choices. On the one hand, we have the current and ‘traditional” position that each individual Baptist church is responsible for making its own decisions and policies on how it operates in accordance with its own constitution. In this scenario, the Association serves as a loose grouping of like-minded autonomous entities with a role primarily of mutual help, support and guidance. The Association has no authoritarian role in telling churches what to do or how to think, even less a role in sanctioning those who do not conform to some central policy directive. It is our view that this current situation as it has evolved over time is what has enabled each Baptist church to develop its own unique character and specific values and identity, whilst also recognizing and celebrating the diversity of its membership and their various faith journeys.
However, the proposal before the Assembly takes away this sense of autonomy and replaces it with an alternative scenario where a group of Baptists from one or more churches can persuade or enforce a particular policy or set of policies through the governing processes (the Assembly or General council) quite possibly from a minority position, and having succeeded in having the ruling adopted, can then enforce that particular practice on the denomination as a whole, and potentially against the wishes of other congregations and church leaders. It is a scenario which also by definition encourages conformity, not diversity; legalism not freedom. Furthermore, the promotion of sanctions against churches or pastors for non-compliance then introduces a whole new realm of authoritarianism, potential bullying, and centralized control – all of which flies directly in the face of our historic Baptist principles. There is a very real fear that such a regime will be likely to lead to a considerable increase in the numbers of people, both clergy and lay, female and male, leaving the Baptist denomination for other places where freedoms of conscience are still valued and preserved.
Conclusion. We are not advocating any position on the same-sex marriage issue per se. Individuals will have their own views. But this is really little more than a catalyst to the much bigger issue in play here. We very strongly believe that we should reject the authoritarian motions that are being presented and by voting in the negative, we should thus maintain the status quo in our decision-making, that is, that each local church including Ashfield Baptist is an autonomous unit and not only has the clear right under the direction of the Holy Spirit to exercise its own decision-making power over its functions, but indeed has a clear responsibility under God to do so. When we accept this right of autonomy for the local church, it also informs our on-going relationship with the Association, as one of mutual respect, support and guidance, and not one of authoritarian centralized direction. And that is how we believe it should be.
Blessings
Lydia Brichta, Stuart Gibb and Gordon Torry