So, I'm at council right. The place where we discuss debate and make policy. As meetings go council isn't bad, I quite like it.
On this sessions agenda was a paper from the ministry department regarding civil partnerships. It is in fact the only reason I came since I'm getting married this Saturday and frankly should be doing wedding type stuff whilst battling the fear.
Still, I'm here now so here's the debate. Four years ago civil partnerships came into being. This year council has asked that we state in some guidelines that ministers should not take part in these ceremonies. They will however, allow us to attend if we want. They don't want us to take part for the following reason,
"it would divert from the historic teaching of the church on marriage, where any sexual relationship outside of marriage falls short of God's express will for humankind. Such a stance would be held by a large majority of Churches in membership with the Baptist Union of Great Britain."
There are many reasons why this paper has unsettled me. I think I'm going to list some of them
* We have had a four year gap between civil partnerships coming into being and these guidelines. Why have the union chosen to do this now? There has been no period of consultation with the the body of churches so it seems to be making unfounded claims about what the churches think.
*The guidelines rest on lots of statements which it say are a given. I think I would like to discuss who is saying what God's express will for humankind is. I think that it is questionable.
*since only 8 churches have taken up the material to look at the issues homosexuality brings to our communities shouldn't we be doing more on that level before bringing in quite stringent guidelines?
*The church has a very culturally based understanding of marriage. We have a diverse history where within church communities, hand fasting has been common, multiple wives were OK. We have an old Testament full of Godly Men and concubines. Our history of marriage is really quite diverse.
* The union is happy for me to be rejected by churches on the basis of my gender. If that happens, the church will be met with, discussions will be had but at the end of it the church meeting, the gathered people of God will seek Christ and decide.If I go to a church as homosexual and my church community embrace me and my sexuality the union will still say I am not able to go into ministry or have a civil partnership. Then the church will not have the authority through seeking the mind of Christ. You see you need to be careful with rules when persecuting minorities.
*There is also my own personal view too that a good union between two people of the same sex is something that God would not tolerate but would instead revel in the shear delight of.
The discussion we had was really very very good. Lots of people spoke and listened really well. Moderation was expressed respect was given. I had high hopes after the discussion that this paper could be taken away and further work done. Instead a resolution was brought, quite a clever one really. The resolution was worded such that it advocated support for the ministry team at Didcot and a desire to listen and show respect, all things I would like to do. In the middle though was an advocating of the paper that was originally proposed, no amendments, no movement.
There's no way round it, I think the union may not be a place i can be held in.
I guess it all depended for me on the word 'currently' - I think it is correct to say that currently we are not of one mind on the whole subject of homosexuality and therefore for the sake of unity at this point, this should be our position ... much like Rowan Williams is arguing with the Anglicans, but in the opposite way (we are of not one mind on this so please refrain at the moment from consecrating any more 'gay' bishops). I think the wider issues of how we debate and discuss this needs to be higher on our agenda - so the point made by glen in a comment on neil's blog. Why was it discussed now, because its becoming a more frequent question for the ministry department to tackle and it wanted to test its advice with Council. My hope is that the we will be tackling the issue of churches rejecting women ministers in the near future.
ReplyDeleteOnce you use the word currently, however, and set it in a document, it remains 'current' for the purposes of those who would wish to maintain the staus quo. It's self-fulfilling.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the issue at the moment isn't even the ordination of gay (civilly partnered) ministers. The issue is the freedom of others to advocate on their behalf. This prohibition completely skews discussion and prevents open and honest exploration of the issues. The point is not about whether or not we are of one mind, it's about us being forbidden, on pain of expulsion, from being anything other than that on this issue. That elevates this matter to a place of absolute centrality for Baptist unity.
I don't think advice for ministers on their involvement in civil partnership ceremonies is the same as prohibition. There was certainly space at Council for people to speak freely. Secondly the document didn't pass. The resolution was that the ministry department continue to advise ministers as they currently are. This is not a straightforward easy issue to resolve, and those who have different positions and opinions need to recognise this, what the anglicans largely have failed to do. My hope is that those who who cannot support homosexual relationships and those who support, are both generous enough to listen to those with an opposite position. I believe the Baptist Union have chosen a good path in an educative programme - the same and disappointing issue is so few churches have taken up the opportunity.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding was that the document did pass, and in it is specific reference to the "prohibition" upon ministers from advocating homosexual genital relationships as an acceptable alternative to male/female partnership in marriage.
ReplyDeleteI'm absolutely committed to recognising different positions and i'm under no illusions whatsoever about how un-straight forward this issue is.
The Union has indeed chosen a good path with the educative programme, but the containment of ministers by virtue of the guideline threatens to squash some people between the two contrary sentiments.
Thanks for the comments Andy G. I’m afraid I do think that advice given to ministers on their involvement in civil partner ceremonies is the same as prohibition as there is the need for ministers to ‘come under the discipline of the union in these matters’. The fact that people had to be told not to be scared of ‘the guideline’ when speaking at council highlighted the fear ministers have of speaking and especially losing their jobs around this. We had to be told we were allowed to speak freely.
ReplyDeleteI spoke to a goodly few people after the meeting and my understanding is that the document indeed passed and there was a ratification of the 'advice' given to ministers from BUGB. Paul said that the document we were given was exactly the advice already verbally given from Baptist house so by continuing to advise as we currently are we are affirming fully the document and the document (more significantly) is now informing our advice. Our different take on this also highlights the problem with the resolution. It was worded such that it seemed not to affect change but to advocate good listening and support for Didcot. Things did change though, what was before, ‘advice’ is now a written document on guidelines with regard to civil partnerships. Open dialogue, conversation, listening is all good, but when we ratified that document we did the opposite of that. We clamped down on an area and took a stance.
My other problem was with the timing which I found inexplicable. I understand that there is an ever increasing need from communities for advice. You would have thought then that if we weren’t rushing guidelines out (we have waited 4 years), we could have taken a deliberate journey with this, a journey of deep listening and education before jumping in. Instead we had ¾ of an hour at council on this and our communities will be oblivious to the stance we have adopted. It’s hardly a discerning or a seeking.
Like Andy A I don’t really feel a need to get people to think as I think but I do wish to be able to speak and advocate as I see fit before God and within my community on this. At the minute that seems to be something I am officially prevented from and cautioned against.
My understanding of things is that we inserted 'currently' to indicate the possiblity of future change and give some latitude to Min Dept but we then passed the resolution. I do not doubt the pastoral concerns that brought the matter to council and the compassion exercsied already but i felt his puts the advice given into a formal position and one i fear may become the litmus test of orthodoxy in time to come on this and other analogous issues. I tried to express this in Council along with an indication of the breadth of disciplines that need to be brought to bear upon an informed journey on human sexuality. Council was certainly a safe space for some people to say what through love wisdom or fear they have previously withheld but by inference other spaces are not so safe and public advocacy of views not in line with that agreed in Council would be open to disciplinary action. Ultimately this is why i voted against it but i was one of a very small minority.
ReplyDelete