BUV

The mistaken Baptist Guide

/ MurrayCampbell

 The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission has published, ‘A Guide for the Baptist Union of Victoria’. The ‘Guide’ relates to the Conversion and Suppression Laws adopted in Victoria 3 years ago.

The Guide was released 4 months ago and published on a Victorian Government website, and it is finding more public attention recently, including journalist John Sandeman reporting on it today.

This Government document is problematic and because of growing awareness, it is worth highlighting some of the issues.

The name of the Guide is confusing and highly questionable. The Baptist Union of Victoria Assembly has not discussed or agreed to such a Guide. However, the Victorian Human Rights website, states,  ‘We have developed the Providing Safety for LGBTQA People of Faith guide with and for faith leaders in Baptist Union of Victoria churches”’. 

On the one hand, this is not a Baptist Union of Victoria document, however, the BUV name is all over it. For example, 

  • The title, “A Guide for the Baptist Union of Victoria’.
  • The Victorian Human Rights website, states, “We have developed the Providing Safety for LGBTQA People of Faith guide with and for faith leaders in Baptist Union of Victoria (BUV) churches”
  • The  ‘Guide’ states, “The Baptist Union of Victoria (BUV) recognises that Baptist communities hold a broad range of views about matters of gender and sexuality”. 
  • The BUV agreed for the HRC to write the “Guide”.
  • Multiple BUV personnel and pastors met with and provide information and ideas to the HRC.
  • The Guide acknowledges assistance from BUV and baptist members.
  • THE BUV is using and promoting the document.
  • The BUV is now running seminars run by HRC.

 My understanding is that the HRC approached the BUV and BUV personnel gave permission for this project. They then provided ideas and information to the HRC.  The HRC is now using this Guide to promote the conversion/suppression laws, and as the commissioner states, we hope other Christian denominations will follow the Baptist lead. 

Ro Allen, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner, wrote the forward which includes this explanation, 

“The CSP Act does not stop anyone from holding beliefs about sexuality or gender, or having conversations with others about those beliefs – it prohibits causing harm to others by trying to impose beliefs to change someone’s gender or sexuality. This is a law to prevent harm. 

Change or suppression practices are actions based on the ideology that there is something wrong or broken about being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or asexual (LGBTQA), which this law says isn’t true….

The BUV community has been among the first to step up and work alongside the Commission to provide clear support and guidance to its faith leaders and congregations. Over time, we hope to do the same with other Victorian faith communities.” 

The Guide is confusing to the outsider and indeed to Baptists, who understandably assume that this is a Baptist document and one that Baptists affirm.

The 48 page Guide proceeds to give advice to churches and to pastors about how to respond to questions/issues surrounding a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity. At times the document acknowledges a dissonance between formal Baptist teachings/positions and the law, but then it also says things like, 

“The Baptist Union of Victoria (BUV) recognises that Baptist communities hold a broad range of views about matters of gender and sexuality.”

This dissonance within the BUV now manifests itself in a Victorian Government document, and that is a problem.

The Guide affirms all the latest iterations of sexual and gender expressions, and nowhere affirms the moral goodness of Baptist and Christian views on sexuality and gender. Of course, it can’t because the very fabric of these laws aims to disqualify Christian beliefs and practices on these issues. Instead, the Christian understanding of sexuality and gender is defined in negative terms right throughout the document.

In addition, the Guide encourages churches and pastors to seek advice from affirming churches and provides a list of LGBITQ websites for churches to use.

The dissonance is aired like a screeching car brake. As John Sandeman has highlighted,

The guide outlines restrictions on Baptists and other religious leaders on discussing sexuality and gender identity with LGBTQA persons imposed by the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 (CSP Act). It acknowledges that the BUV takes the position that “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” and that “BUV shall not ordain persons who engage in homosexual practice.” The guide says that these statements of belief, and others can be made generally or in sermons and Bible studies, but not when “not targeted at an individual to change or suppress their gender identity or sexual orientation.”

There we have an example of where Baptist practice contradicts the intent behind Victorian Law. 

For Christians, sex is a beautiful gift from God and that is to be enjoyed within the constraints of marriage between a man and a woman. The Guide explains that while a church or pastor is free to explain formal doctrine in a theoretical sense, they are not permitted to address it to any individual or to insist upon it for any church member. Even praying with an individual who requests prayer, is illegal.

I don’t want to repeat everything I’ve said in the past about these laws. There are aspects that I affirm and others that I cannot, because I’m a Christian. Readers can find those comments easily enough. I will say because it is important and you may not want to read older articles (fair enough): Christians following Jesus (is there any other kind?) will love others and seek their wellbeing. The only message we have is the one we have received and that is of the righteous and loving God whose Son gave his life as ransom for many. God doesn’t pick the do-gooders, he loves those who realise they are deeply flawed. Sometimes, churches forget this. At the time when these controversial laws were being debated, I was among other Christian leaders who acknowledged there have been examples of dreadful attitudes and behaviour toward people who don’t identify as heterosexual. These may not be commonplace, but some people have been terribly mistreated. For that, churches ought to repent. Around 2019, I learned from a journalist how a few fringe religious groups practised ‘conversion techniques’, which were often adopted from mid-20th Century psychiatry, not from the Bible. The Victorian Laws go well beyond prohibiting such awful and dangerous behaviour; prayer is banned and talking with an individual about sex and gender is prohibited, unless the content of your message conforms with whatever is the latest iteration of sexual ethics from LaTrobe. That is staggering, and it’s all the more astonishing given the worldwide exposure of the abuse toward minors with gender dysphoria by State sponsored institutions.

Don’t misunderstand, there is merit in explaining the law, however, this Guide does much more. It contains ideas and advice that is contrary to Scripture and our pastoral responsibility. It is targeting Baptist Churches and for some reason, the BUV thought it wise to give them ammunition and the target. Baptists used to believe in the separation of church and state! This is a Government produced document designed to shape how our Baptist churches think about sexuality and gender issues. Arguing otherwise is simply not believing the authors’ words.

The thing about the Christian Gospel is that it is about conversion. By definition, Christianity is a conversion religion. Jesus calls people to ‘repent and believe the good news’.  Of course, it doesn’t mean someone who is same-sex attracted all of a sudden wants to marry someone of the opposite sex; that’s not the Christian goal. As many same sex attracted Christians testify, the desire and aim is to be godly, and that includes honouring God with our bodies and relationships. Sure, that may not be a common view in our culture, but in an age where we are beginning to realise that ‘you do you’ isn’t always good and it doesn’t really satisfy, there is something new and intriguing about the old time Bible vision for human flourishing.

In contrast to NSW Baptists who have taken positive action in recent years to confirm Christian belief and practice, imprecision and trying to mimic the Archbishop of Canterbury has an adverse effect on Gospel unity and mission success in Victoria. That ought to grieve our churches.

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that there is now a public document confusing people about where Baptists stand and what we believe. I have already had a member of another Christian denomination contact me because s they were perplexed and couldn’t understand why the BUV would participate in such a project. Not only is this Guide confusing people (both outside and inside baptist churches), it’s almost like handing over a noose for Baptists to hang themselves.

To be clear once again, this Guide is not our guide. It is not a Baptist Union of Victoria document. It is the unfortunate result of a few well-meaning Baptists taking the bait from the HRC.

It is my hope that we Victorian Baptists serve and love our neighbours well, always holding out the Gospel of life, and clarify and confirm that this is not our Guide. 

15 December update:

John Sandeman has spoken with the VEOHRC. This added information only adds weight to concerns that have been raised with this ‘Guide’. This issue is consequential for all Baptist Churches and Pastors in Victoria – https://theothercheek.com.au/a-disturbing-question-about-the-vic-baptists-and-the-conversion-law/

12 Dec update:

David Devine from the BUV Office has spoken with John Sandeman and offered a perspective on the Baptist Union’s role in the publication of the Human Rights Commission’s ‘Guide for the Baptist Union of Victoria’. 

David is a brother in Christ. 

His comments confirm what I have written above and underscore the important issues I have raised. 

Vic Baptists: How we were consulted on the LGBQA guide to the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act

Advertising: Principal of Whitley College

/ MurrayCampbell / 32 Comments

The Baptist theological college in Victoria, Whitley College, is looking for a new Principal.

whitley-lr-112

This is an exciting opportunity for the Baptist community in Victoria, as well as for one auspicious applicant.

There is an elephant standing a few blocks from the famous Melbourne Zoo, and one which can’t be ignored: The name ‘Whitley College’ conjures up a long history of theological liberalism, and with good reason. The sad reality is, there are very few statements in the Baptist doctrinal basis that are not rejected by one or more of Whitley’s faculty and adjunct teachers. One cannot assume that penal substitution or the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ are necessarily affirmed or taught as Bible truth. Ideas such as universalism, modalism, affirming homosexual practices, are all to be found in teachings among the faculty.

I understand there are some Victorian Baptists who have a positive relationship with the College, but there is no escaping the fact that many churches (perhaps the majority) will not currently send their people to Whitley, because of radical deconstruction of the evangelical and baptist faith that swirls around its Colosseum looking building. 

For two generations Evangelicals have overwhelmingly stayed away from Whitley (except for ordination studies), and have trained at other Bible Colleges in Melbourne, and even interstate.

That being said, there is a growing desire to see reform, and to see our college move forward.

Letters from various Whitley Board members have been circulating this year, aghast at the idea that Baptists are expressing concerns over the college’s orthodoxy, but the reality is, these concerns have been present for decades. For the most part people have been afraid to speak up, and when they have, no one has been listening, until now. In several public forums this year, including May’s Gathering, numerous concerns were raised regarding the teaching and training emanating from Whitley, communicating that the Churches want change.

whitley

Please refer to the formal job description. In addition, I can speak for some Victorian Baptists who are keen to see the following attributes in the College Principal:

  • We are looking for a Principal with strong Evangelical convictions and who affirms the doctrinal basis of the BUV.
  • We are looking for a Principal with a pastoral heart.
  • A strong leader and visionary for the future of training Gospel ministers.
  • A character that fits with the qualifications described in 1 Timothy 2 and Titus ch.1
  • A Principal who can effectively engage with Victorian Baptist Churches

The College Principal is an important position, and provides a significant opportunity for the future of not only the College, but also for the Baptist Union of Victoria. 

Perhaps you would like to join with many of us in praying for this process. Anyone interested in applying should follow the above link (applications close August 22nd)

Complementarianism, a conversation Baptists want to have?

/ MurrayCampbell / 5 Comments

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

On the ‘Baptist Union of Victoria’s’ Facebook page this week, a series of articles have been posted on the topic of women in leadership. These articles are not written by Victorian Baptists, nor do they, I believe, reflect the formal Baptist position on women in leadership. If that were the case, the BUV would have to give up its affirmation of diversity, and a growing number of Baptist churches would no longer welcome in the BUV family.  However, the publication of these articles is raising questions among pastors, especially the commentary accompanying these posts,

‘Not all Baptist Churches provide opportunities for women to lead. How is your church doing? “Some sexism is blatant, but most of it is subtle, hidden behind so-called “good intentions.” In many churches, it is hidden behind misinterpreted gender roles.”’

‘What is your church doing to empower more women to lead?’

The last question is useful and important, but unfortunately it is being framed by a particular view that wishes to distort a true complementation position.

Uncritically dumping articles into public space can be unhelpful, and leaves readers wondering whether the BUV agrees with the content of these articles, and whether their churches are meant to follow suit? 

Obviously someone is wanting to generate a conversation, and it is certainly a topic worthy of dialogue. But to avoid giving the appearance that the BUV is driving this, they ought to put their name to these posts, and they should publish articles that fairly represent the views they are so openly criticising.

The most recent post is Kylie Pidgeon’s article, Complementarianism and Family Violence: The shared dynamics of Power and Control. Kylie Pidgeon raises several important questions that deserve proper consideration by the local church, and I grateful to her for doing this. But sadly, the timbre of her message may be muddied due to the parodic character of other articles being promoted. 

In summary, the message being conveyed through this series of posts is that complementarianism means ‘sexism’, ‘gender inequality’ and even ‘domestic violence’. This is a serious accusation and one that ought only to be suggested with the greatest care.

Take for example, the article promoted yesterday, written by Charlie Olivia Grantham, The Case of Subtle Sexism.

Grantham writes,

“male headship are all different strains of the same toxic ideology—sexism. Some sexism is blatant, but most of it is subtle, hidden behind so-called “good intentions.” In many churches, it is hidden behind misinterpreted gender roles.”

But hold on, the Bible teaches and affirms male headship in both marriage and the church. Is the author suggesting the Bible is sexist? Is she accusing God, the author of Scripture, as being sexist? Or with a gigantic and unexplained hermeneutical leap, she can simply denude the relevance of all those passages of Scripture?

Also, Grantham refuses to accept there are countless intelligent and godly women who affirm complementarian theology and practice. In fact, one mature Christian woman, whom I was talking with today, rolled her eyes at Grantham’s suggestion. Is she a sexist for disagreeing with Grantham? Apparently so, as Grantham claims to know the mind of God (even if other women do not) when she says, ’I realized that even if God is calling her to preach, she will never know it because she is blinded by sexist lies fed to her over a lifetime.’

In encouraging woman to take the lead in church, Grantham doesn’t call women to the Scriptures, and to trust God in his word; instead, she calls women to believe in their ‘gut instinct’. What terrible advice to giver anyone, whether male or female. As Christians, is not God in his word an authority over us, and is not our task to trust him and follow his words?

Not only is Grantham’s advice unsound, her presentation of complementarianism is a gross caricature. It’s akin to me pointing to a picture of Bugs Bunny and saying to my kids, that’s exactly what real rabbits are like! Perhaps Grantham is picturing a conservative church somewhere, but it is not representative of any complementarian church I know of.

I remember sitting in a meeting with denominational leaders four years ago, and they all believed complementarians taught that women were inferior to men. I assured them that was not the case, and a church teaching such would be contravening Scripture. But what it showed me is that there is significant ignorance on this issue, and now I understand why, if people are relying on articles like this.

There is such a thing called misogyny, and when it worms its way into the home or the church, it needs to be exposed and thrown out: It is sin. But this is not what complementarians believe or practice. Was the Apostle Paul a woman hater for writing (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, dare we add) 1 Timothy ch.2?

The Bible is adamant on the question of equality between men and women. One is not greater than the other, and neither are they the same. The Bible gives examples of women exercising ministry in the local church and encourages women to serve. We want to learn from them and seek to faithfully apply these Scriptures in our own churches. The Bible also teaches male headship in the home and church; stereotyping or disregarding these Scriptures, only serves to create bigger issues.

Complementarianism is not some strange and archaic practice belonging to pre-enlightenment era of history, it is a view held by many churches today, including Baptist Churches, and it is a position held with broad historical precedence and deep theological warrant. When I have time, I am keen to lay out these arguments in another article.

Having said this, I know thoughtful Christians who have done the hard work of exegeting the Biblical texts and have landed in a different place to myself. I disagree with them on this matter, but I still love them and we partner together in ministry ventures. 

Even among complementarians there are some differences. For example, New Testament theologian, Michael Bird, holds to a complementarian view of marriage, but not for the church. John Dickson is okay with women preaching in his church, although they do so under the authority of the church’s leadership. Some churches have male elders but encourage male and female deacons. At Mentone, we praise God for the many women who serve in a multitude of ways, including on staff and as deacons. We would be a far lesser people without their godliness, gifts and love in service.

It is disappointing to see this issue raised in such an unhelpful way. I’m sure it is probably just a super keen staffer wanting a conversation started. At the moment the BUV is an exciting people to be part of, with many encouraging things happening, and so this is a rather unfortunate incident. Hopefully we can do better in the future.