Care, caution and challenge as the Baptist Union reflects on same-sex marriage
Pam Davies
IN MARCH, around 70 people gathered at the Council of the Baptist Union of Great Britain to consider changing their rules so a minister in a same-sex marriage would no longer be committing gross misconduct and lose their accreditation. Pam Davies reflects on the conversation:
One of the things that most struck me about Baptist Council this year was the amount of care and attention that went into preparing for our time together. Everybody knew that conversations about equal marriage and the Ministerial Recognition Rules were going to be challenging, and it felt to me as though great care was taken to support those of us who were contributing.
Four of us shared at Council, Luke Dowding (Executive Director of OneBodyOneFaith), Andy Fitchet, Co-Director of Affirm: Baptists Together for LGBT+ Inclusion), an anonymous contributor and myself. We were given different options as to how we could share, two of us contributed via pre-recorded interviews and two shared live on the second day of Council. We were introduced to somebody who had volunteered to offer pastoral support to each of us during and after Council and we had a support network that we’ve built ourselves, some of whom were present with us.
A report had been circulated beforehand outlining some of the different understandings of marriage that exist across the Union, and a separate video had been prepared which explored how we understand Scripture. The agenda was well thought out and circulated to us in advance, in great detail, so that we knew exactly what was taking place and when. Sian Murray-Williams, moderator of the Baptist Union's Faith and Unity Department,facilitated these conversations graciously and with incredible sensitivity, making time to check in with us regularly.
While it all sounds positive so far, I don’t want to gloss over the difficulties that were experienced over the course of Council. Some of us came away feeling encouraged, some of us came away greatly hurt, and many were a combination of the two.
One of the reflections that came out of Council, which was divided (but fairly evenly so, to my surprise) was that this is a ‘polarised issue.’ I’ve thought over and over again about how I can share an honest reflection that conveys the difficulties felt at Council in a way that is fair to everyone, and this is where I’ve landed. This isn’t a ‘polarised’ issue, and to call it so is misleading.
I met a number of people at Council who were quietly inclusive. This meant that in the ‘whole room’ discussions they didn’t necessarily want to pick up a microphone and share their view, but in the safety of small groups they felt like they could share their stories and experiences, and it was in these conversations that I found hope.
I met a number of people at Council who were expressly not affirming, fearing consequences for themselves and their churches as a result of the proposed change to the Ministerial Recognition Rules, which would allow ministers in same sex marriages to be accredited by the Union. In my view, those who strongly held this view felt most comfortable expressing it in the ‘whole room’ conversations, which perhaps leads to an imbalance as to the perception of what the ‘majority view’ might be.
While Council, rightly, created different opportunities and methods of contributing, there is something about being ‘at the front’ that conveys a greater sense of importance of a particular view, and I’m not yet sure how we might balance that out. How can we convey what is communicated in a small group by those who do not want to hold a microphone, or for those who do not yet hold a settled view or are questioning, or for those who would rather write something down or share creatively, in a way that carries the same sense of importance?
I met a number of people at Council who held neither of these views, and instead existed somewhere in between. Some were inclusive but conscious of what expressing that view might mean for themselves or their ministry, some were not affirming but desperately wanted to find a way to offer a depth of pastoral support to their LGBTQ+ members, some didn’t yet know what they thought.
This isn’t a question of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ We aren’t a Union being pushed to pick a side between two opposing views - the real question is a lot more nuanced than that. What we are really asking is, as a collection of thousands of different expressions of faith, whether or not we can hold together the accompanying multitude of understandings of same-sex marriage in a way that is healthy, and gracious. As affirming contributors, we have often lamented on harm, but I hope that we go on to ask for more than that. I hope that the absence of harm isn’t our end goal but a starting point, and that we might move on from it until we are in a position not only where nobody is hurt but where all can thrive.
It struck me that everyone is scared; of exclusion, of harm, of getting it wrong, of the consequences for the Union. As people of faith, we often talk about not wanting to live in fear, and I understand that, but we are right to be concerned when people share experiences of faith and church that are not all that we would hope for them to be. It is right that we are approaching these conversations with great care and caution, but that we are showing bravery in having them anyway, even though we all recognise that they challenge us deeply.
We have waited a long time to be able to have these conversations in person, and the straw poll to gauge the feeling in the room at the end of Council was split by a smaller margin than I anticipated. Council has agreed that the Ministerial Recognition Committee will consider the feedback from Council in order to explore what happens next, and that different voices will continue to be invited to share as we do so.
