NSW Baptists

Correcting 3 Misnomers About Baptists

/ MurrayCampbell

There seem to be 3 misnomers circulating regarding Baptist belief and practice, in light of the decision to remove 2 churches from the NSW/ACT Baptist Association:

  1. Freedom of conscience
  2. Freedom of association. 
  3. It’s a matter of interpretation

I have written about these topics at length on other occasions, so I won’t repeat everything here. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile pointing out that while these 3 points are being used to criticise the Baptists’ decision,  these very points in fact support the decisions that were made. 

Of course, freedom of conscience, and its cousin, freedom of association, are important Baptist principles. These are ideals for which I am thankful. They do not exist however without context, form or boundary. 

Speaking to the ABC, Belinda Groves (Senior Minister Canberra Baptist), suggested, 

‘Baptist churches are not like the Anglicans or the Catholics – it’s not very hierarchical. We have what’s called local, you know, congregational autonomy. And when we gather together as an association, it’s recognising that our real governance happens in our local churches and that that association is really just a recognition of connection between us and a common commitment to do things together that take a bit more than just a small individual church.’

That’s mostly true. Groves doesn’t explain what this Baptist connection is and means (I sense she’s downplaying it), which is fine given it’s a short television interview, but when we begin asking the question, what is the glue that makes us baptists together, the answer given is often that being Baptist is primarily about freedom: freedom of conscience and freedom of association. Again, while these are cherished ideals, they can’t exist without definition and boundaries, otherwise, they become meaningless terms.

When I hear some voices declare that Saturday’s decisions cut against our Baptist distinctive (some of these voices are by non baptists), I want to respond by saying,  you’re being historically myopic and theologically incorrect.

Baptists can rightly defend a person’s right to believe and practice their religion freely AND believe that freedom of association requires common agreement among those desiring to associate together. The fact that we have doctrinal bases demonstrates that there are commonly aligned theological convictions: the Trinity, penal substitution, faith in Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and more.  When it comes to contemporary issues surrounding sexual practices, these were not disputed in former days, but now through what Carl Trueman describes as ‘expressive individualism’, matters like same-sex marriage have come about and therefore churches are required to form a view. 

In 2009, theologian Hefin Jones wrote a paper for NSW Baptists where he offered an important historical survey of different strands of Baptist thought. While he is surveying NSW Baptists, the same groupings are found among Baptists worldwide. Jones demonstrates that when it comes to confessions and statements of association, there are broadly 3 Baptist groups: Anti-Creedalism, Non-Creedal Confessionalism, and Confessionalism.

That’s important for understanding those who are decrying the decision made by 2/3s of Baptist delegates last Saturday. When they argue that NSW is becoming anti-baptist and authoritarian, they are representing one line of historic Baptist thought, not the entirety. 

Of NSW, Jones notes, 

“Were Anti- or Non-Creedalism intrinsic to Baptist identity then NSW Baptists as a denomination have never been true to it…from the beginning of the NSW Baptist Union in 1868 it has been Confessional, the real question being, how Confessional? Unlike the associational rules of 1858 the 1868 constitution included a doctrinal basis.” 

It’s interesting to discover that both freedom of conscience and freedom of association are linked historically to Baptists speaking against Governmental intrusion in religious matters or controlling the local church. More recently these have become an argument for Baptists to promote all kinds of ideas and practices. This, in my view, can lead to misrepresenting Baptist ideals.

It’s also the case that Baptists have always had mechanisms for removing pastors and churches. That our Unions have rarely resorted to these is a good thing but sadly sometimes it is necessary for the sake of Gospel clarity, unity and mission.

As much as some Baptists are crying ‘freedom’, we understand that the conscience isn’t infallible, nor is it the Lord of the Church. And Christian association, for it to be truly Christian, requires common ascent to the Gospel, and indeed to things like the Apostles Creed and Nicaea Creed. Baptists get along and disagree on many tertiary matters, but same-sex marriage isn’t one of them, and when we’re told that it is, I suspect progressives are ignoring their own clarion calls for justice and what they understand the gospel to be about. 

This leads to the biggest misnomer of all, namely that same-sex marriage is merely a matter of interpretation and therefore not one that’s serious enough for breaking fellowship.

Bible interpretation is indeed a factor and there’s a whole discussion that can be had about hermeneutics, but is the Bible’s teaching on sexuality vague and contestable? The argument, ‘it’s just about interpretation’ serves more like a poor cover version of today’s sexual milieu. It’s an effective tool for muddying the waters, but little more. I suspect when progressive churches are transparent about their convictions (as I’ve heard some pastors argue behind the scenes), they believe sexuality issues are a love of God issue and a justice issue. Far from speaking about same-sex marriage as a second-tier belief, they often frame their position as crucial to understanding the Gospel and the character of Christ.  If they are to be consistent, surely they appreciate and agree that the issue at hand isn’t one where we can all agree to disagree. It’s either a primary justice and love of God matter or it isn’t.

Same-sex marriage is a primary Baptist issue for 2 clear reasons: Jesus says sex outside heterosexual marriage is a sin and the Apostle Paul refers to exclusion from God’s Kingdom and what contradicts sound doctrine and the gospel. How can we embrace that which God says excludes? That’s not God’s hate language, this is God’s loving word who desires people to have life in His name. 

The ABC presenter noted the banner that was positioned behind where Belinda Groves was speaking. It says, ‘Everyone’s welcome here’. 

Yes, we want our churches to be welcoming and loving and kind. Please God, may they be a community where people from any background can come and be welcomed and hear the gospel. For the most part, our churches are.  However, welcoming everyone into our churches, as Baptists do, does not mean embracing every belief and practice that walks in the door. No Christian Church can function that way; indeed no sporting club, school, or political party can function according to that principle. It’s the very fact that God’s love yet profoundly disagrees with us that shook the world and led to the cross and gives hope. I sinned, and yet he loved me. I rebuffed God’s ways, and yet he leads us to repentance and new life by his Son. 

If Baptists choose to say no to the orthodox view of marriage, they are free to do so, but in doing so they have made a choice to tear themselves from this Baptist fabric. It’s not what anyone wishes, but God’s gospel of love and forgiveness and reconciliation matters so much that it’s incumbent upon churches to guard the faith once for all delivered. 

The process undertaken by the New South Wales/ACT  Association took longer than many of the key Church Councils throughout church history. I can’t think of how many meetings and conversations and Assemblies were held over the past 10 years that finally led to Saturday’s decision. People may or may not like the process, but one thing is certain, it was pretty exhaustive and exhausting, and rightly followed Baptist principles of the churches making decisions together for the sake of the gospel and gospel unity, health and mission. 

I don’t know of anyone rejoicing over Saturday’s decision to remove the 2 churches. It was a sad day. It’s appropriate to grieve the loss of these churches and be thankful that a clear majority of churches chose to stick with Scripture and the good of future Christian witness. As the media take hold of the issue, it’s pretty obvious how the game will be played and who will be painted as the bad guys. So I reckon the Apostle Peter offers a timely word, ‘don’t be afraid’.

“Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us…Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?  But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.”  But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. (1 Peter 2:12; 3:13-15)

NSW Baptists to make an important decision next week

/ MurrayCampbell

Update: May 3rd. 5:30pm:

The NSW/ACT Association today and removed the 2 churches for holding errant views (see below).

It is a day for mourning and we can pray that these churches will turn around.

Also thankful that the Association made the right decision for the sake of the gospel. This matters for Christian unity and gospel witness. May the Lord honour the faithfulness of his churches in NSW.

The NSW and ACT Baptist Association will vote next week to expel 2 churches who don’t subscribe to the Baptist (and Christian) view of marriage.

John Sandeman reports, 

“Motions to remove Hamilton and Canberra Baptist churches from the NSW/ACT Baptist Association have been reccomended by the Assembly (church parliament) Council. The Baptists’ Assembly will meet to vote on May 2 and 3, voting on the Saturday as Australia also conducts a poll.

“Over the last few years we have moved through a discernment process as an Association surrounding Affiliation, Baptist Values and Marriage,” according to an Assembly Council statement: “This culminated in decisions taken at our 2024 Annual Assembly. That Assembly approved (by an 84% majority) a process for engaging with churches who appear not to support the Association’s position statement on marriage.

“This decision was the outworking of significant thought, prayer and discussion across our movement.”

I believe there are a further small number of churches who may face removal at a later date. 

I’m not based in NSW. I lived in Sydney for 4 years many years ago and loved my time serving in and belonging to a baptist church there. I remain friends with many NSW Baptists, and where NSW Baptists go, has interest for Baptists across Australia. 

This week as people gear up for the NSW/ACT Assembly, there are a small number of voices murmuring that this motion is unbaptist-like. Former NSW Baptist pastor and now Uniting Church minister, Rod Benson, goes further and suggests,

 ‘It saddens me to see a whole movement of otherwise healthy churches intentionally forsaking the way of Jesus just so a few bullies can feel good about themselves.’

No, this is not the case. It is reasonable to believe that NSW Baptists are following Jesus in taking this course and remaining very much Baptist in the process. 

At the time when NSW Baptists were discussing the topic in 2022,, Erin Martine Sessions wrote a piece for the ABC, accusing baptists of ‘selling their soul over same-sex marriage’ and claiming that the position went against baptist principles. Far from it,  a baptist association coming to a common mind on important doctrinal matters is very much baptist; it’s what an association does. Was a thorough process followed? Yes. Indeed, the process for reaching agreement on why and how a biblical view of marriage matters to a fellowship of churches took several years and multiple Assembly meetings. In the end, an overwhelming majority of NSW/ACT Baptists were in agreement. 

It is theologically odd and historically shallow to allege baptists never or shouldn’t require agreement on a set of beliefs or expectations. Historically, many Baptists have written and affirmed doctrinal statements and positions when the need arose. There is a popular view today among Baptists that we are anti-creedal and that we don’t want or need statements of faith to join together. The saying, ‘no creed but Christ’ may sound appealing, but it’s neither historically true nor wise. Sure, some baptists subscribe to this narrow view, but many more baptists have not and do not. Throughout 400 years of Baptist history, Baptist fellowships have written confessions and statements of doctrine and required assent to them. One of the little-known facts about baptists is that we have more doctrinal statements than probably every other protestant denomination! The desire among NSW baptist churches to stand on the Christian view of marriage (and more) isn’t less than baptist, it is in keeping with many baptists historically (including those in Australia).

The next question is, and the one being tested next week, will the churches apply their agreed upon principles? 

This is not a difficult question. It is certainly a sad one, for no one wishes to see Churches turning away from God’s words and ways. It is also a weighty decision, for no one should ever consider removing a church lightly. But discerning the right course of action isn’t particularly murky in this situation

There are some baptists who hold that freedom of conscience reigns supreme and that freedom of association is our highest value. As important as these ideals are to baptists, they are not the Lord of the Church. 

Baptists believe in the freedom of conscience, but when the conscience contradicts Scripture we are obliged to point that out. The human conscience isn’t infallible and when it strays, it is appropriate in the Christian setting for that individual or church to be called to repentance and submit to Scripture. This is basic to normal and biblical patterns of church discipline. 

Baptists also believe in freedom of association. Churches can uphold their sense of autonomy and follow what they believe is right, but when it comes to being in association, the association needs to have a sufficient common basis. Being Christian, this commonality or unity needs to be properly gospel oriented and faithful to the Scriptures.  

By definition, an association must have common ground among its constituents, otherwise it’s little more than porous hole in the ground or Dear Liza’s bucket of holes.

Do we need common agreement in the Gospel? What if a teaching or practice contradicts the gospel? What if a church is teaching an idea that causes people to sit outside God’s Kingdom? 

The understanding of marriage that Baptists articulate (not only in NSW but also Victoria and across Australia) fits with the Genesis paradigm and with Jesus’ teaching about marriage and sex. Jesus was pretty clear, sexual behaviour outside marriage between a man and woman is considered ‘porneia’ (immoral). In light of Jesus, it’s difficult to square same sex marriage as negotiable or a tertiary matter.

The Apostle Paul didn’t leave the churches in doubt or treating marriage and sexual holiness with murkiness or broad validation. 1 Corinthians 6 talks about ‘wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?’ and 1 Timothy mentions practices that contradict ‘sound doctrine’ and the ‘gospel’. Both lists specify sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage.

When a church encourages practices that keep people outside the Kingdom of God, let the reader understand, we are not quibbling over tertiary matters. If we are taking Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 seriously, it is difficult to conclude that marriage and sexual holiness is one of those areas where Christians can agree to disagree. 

To return to the holey bucket analogy, by removing churches that no longer affirm a Christian view of marriage, NSW Baptists are plugging a hole and that can only be beneficial for Gospel unity and witness.

Christian unity is beautiful and precious and holy. We are not going to agree on everything, and that’s ok, but the issues at stake here matter because they go to the heart of why Christ died and of the life God calls his people too.

Not for a moment do I want to underestimate the significance of the motions before NSW Baptists. We know that God doesn’t promise growing popularity and acceptance in the culture should we choose faithfulness, but honest and humble faithfulness is the way to advance the gospel. We are hearing more and more reports of young people being dissatisfied with the empty and failing promises our society is churning out. Young adults are looking for something more substantial and better. The dream of finding your own truth is turning into a nightmare, and Gen Zers are asking for a good news story that has guts and beauty, truth and goodness. They need clarity not cloudiness.

We don’t love our neighbours by capitulating to the sexual zeitgeist. We won’t win them to Jesus if the message we are advocating looks identical to what is already found in Hollywood and along King street Newtown.

The Christian Gospel is freeing and life giving. The Christian view of marriage is an eschatological pointer to Christ and his bride, the church. And that is why this decision on May 2nd matters.

As NSW Baptists meet next week, it is a time for mourning. Pray that these erring churches will turn around. We can also be thankful for these motions and pray that New South Wales Baptists, for sake of the Gospel and love for our neighbours, stick with Jesus.

Open Baptists closing the door on the Gospel

/ MurrayCampbell

A new Baptist network in Australia has been announced. Rumours have been circulating for some time as disenchanted Baptist pastors meet to discuss the future. They are concerned by signs that State Baptist Unions may be reforming. By reformation, I don’t mean ‘Reformed’ but rather an evident desire among Baptists to affirm foundational beliefs, including around marriage and human sexuality. Whether we like it or not, views on marriage, sex and gender have become a point of orthodoxy in our secular culture. Given the Scriptures are already clear and as Christians, we are people of the word, it makes sense for our churches and denominations to build clarity on these matters.

The Open Baptists are open for business, but the question is, open to what and to whom? 

Photo by Life Of Pix on Pexels.com

The name kinda gives the game away. They are open to new expressions of sexuality and closed to Jesus’ teaching on marriage They are open to new ways of reading the Bible and closed to the Bible’s own hermeneutic. They want our Baptist associations to be open to all manner of theological convictions and ideas, as though the only way to be Baptist is to accept everything and stand for almost nothing.

In part (a large part), these Open Baptists are responding to NSW and ACT Baptists who have undertaken the faithful steps to insist that churches and pastors adhere to the “basic doctrines, objects and values of the Association”. Part of this includes affirming the Christian definition of marriage, in contrast to the recent redefinition of marriage under Australian Federal law. Churches that fail to do so, may be removed from association and pastors lose their accreditation. 

Of course, there isn’t anything outrageous about the step undertaken by the NSW and ACT Association. Indeed it is a positive one for it is signalling that Baptists believe what God says and we trust his good word. But not everyone is happy, indeed some Baptists are fuming and others are saddened.

On their website, the Open Baptists state, 

‘We are a group/network of Baptists and Baptist churches across Australia and beyond, committed to acknowledging Jesus Christ as the head of the church, the priesthood of all believers, freedom of conscience and the autonomy of the local church. We partner together, aware of our differences, in mutual support and mission to see the good news of Jesus made known.’

That paragraph sounds pretty awesome and every Baptist could probably say a loud Amen. The problem is, they have filled these principles with meanings that Baptists don’t subscribe to, and while highlighting these Baptist distinctives they are ignoring others. 

Let’s not be confused by calls to historic Baptist convictions; this is only part of the story. Baptist associations have always established parameters for fellowship, and this includes statements of faith and affirmation of theological priorities. This doesn’t lead to uniformity but supports genuine Gospel unity, from which flows mission, theological education, and ministry partnerships.

The website later admits that issues related to marriage and sexuality ‘have been particular points of concern for some’. Well, that’s an understatement! It is this very issue that has led to this moment.  

To be fair, some of the Baptists who are interested in this new network are not embracing same-sex marriage (and other current notions around sexuality and gender identity) but they so value the autonomy of the local church that they hold that all the churches should coexist.

Baptists are right to cherish autonomy and freedom of conscience, but these are not an open door to justify any kind of errant ideas and views. A Baptist association is a group of autonomous churches in fellowship together, through agreement with core theological and spiritual truths as defined by God in his word. When churches break these, it is only appropriate that they are called to repentance and should they persist, then they are shown the door. 

Surely we recognise that Christians have a higher responsibility; namely faithfulness to God and obedience to his word. Autonomy and conscience don’t serve us particularly well when we’ve cut ourselves loose from the Gospel.  That’s the issue facing Baptists today in Australia. Where churches and pastors hold errant views on crucial matters, is it appropriate for them to remain in fellowship with the wider association? Doesn’t Jesus call out religious leaders when they espouse wrong teachings and ethics? Don’t the Apostolic writings urge churches to dismiss those who abandon the faith and teach aberrant ideas?

If Open Baptists believe Jesus Christ is the head of the church, then surely they would believe what Jesus teaches about human sexuality and submit to him in teaching and practice. That’s the thing, ‘open Baptists’ are closed to what Jesus teaches about marriage and human sexuality. For example, in Matthew 19 Jesus says, 

Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

In a single statement, Jesus repudiates the sexual progressivism of the Pharisees of his day, he insists upon the Genesis paradigm for marriage, and he defines all other sexual activity as porneia, meaning sexual immorality.  That’s not what at least some Open Baptists say and do.

The Open Baptists are holding a conference next month to discern the nature of their network and what kind of relationship, if any, they will have with State Baptist associations. 

The keynote speaker at this conference is a current lecturer at Whitley College and former pastor of Collins Street Baptist, where she campaigned for same sex marriage, despite the agreed position of the Baptist Union of Victoria. 

Canberra Baptist is hosting the event, and so presumably is supportive of Open Baptists. It is well known that Canberra is among a  number of churches railing against the Baptist Union affirming classical marriage and refusing to embrace alternative views. 

Lest we think that this is all about sex, this is but a presenting issue.  Dig a little deeper and I suspect we’ll uncover other doctrines that open Baptists either dilute or altogether try to extinguish. It is no secret that among some of these progressive voices are Baptist pastors and theologians who advocate universalism, who reject penal substitution atonement, and who diminish Fatherhood language for God, and much more.

The real issue isn’t even sexuality but the authority of the Bible and the trustworthiness of God who speaks through his written word. Once all the hermeneutical gymnastics and eisegetical smoke machines are cleared, the Bible really is clear on marriage. The subject matters so much to Jesus that when he addresses the church in Thyatira, he is adamant that the church must not tolerate teaching that leads to sexual immorality. Doing so isn’t loving or kind or useful to either the church or to unbelievers in the community.

The current pastor of Canberra Baptist Church recently stated her disagreement with NSW and ACT Baptists, and did so by expressing this view, 

I also hold as incredibly precious that we continue to interpret Scripture; that our understanding of the world, our contemporary learning about gender and identity and attraction is shaped by what we know of the love of God and the dignity and worth of every human being.

And, finally, based on that understanding of being church and reading Scripture, I hold as incredibly precious our seeking to be a community that welcomes LGBTIQ+ people and recognises their call as followers of Jesus; that honours those in faithful committed relationships and those who are single; that invites everyone to live out God’s intentions for us as God’s people.

This is a very different expression of Christian belief and practice from what we find in the Scriptures. In sharp contrast, Paul beautifully outlines the power of God to wash and sanctify and justify in Christ. As though preempting open baptists, he emphasises that sinful sexual practices are a shut door on the Kingdom of God, but there is a door open filled with grace and forgiveness to everyone who enters through repentance, 

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

When God has so wonderfully opened the door to eternal life, why would any Christian church choose to close it. Where is the love of neighbour in that? Why would other churches think it’s good to partner with these door shutters? If anything shouldn’t we be guarding our churches against gatecrashers?

Time will tell whether these Open Baptists will try to remain in fellowship with existing Baptist unions or depart to begin their own association. One thing seems to be clear and that is, in NSW and ACT, baptists have resolved that faithfulness to the Gospel does matter and that it is no longer possible to partner with churches or pastors who have moved away and embraced errant teachings and practices. Let them go. NSW has removed the sticky question of property, allowing these churches to keep their properties as part of the trust while no longer being in association. This arrangement should work both ways. Hopefully, other State Unions will follow suit.

There is a stark difference between this organisation and new networks that are setting up in other denominations such as the Anglicans. While groups like GAFCON and the Diocese of the Southern Cross are rallying around Christian orthodoxy in settings where their denomination has become hostile toward Gospel orthodoxy, Open Baptists have emerged as an anti-reform voice.

‘Open Baptist’ is a clever name but also quite misleading. It’s a descriptor of those embracing today’s spiritual zeitgeist and shutting the door on God’s Gospel and keeping people from seeing the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Baptists are a big family and we need to be big enough to say no, when the head of the church, Jesus Christ, says no. 

Perhaps Jesus’ parable is more pertinent than we realise, 

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

October 5 – The unfolding story of Andy Stanley and his teaching and pastoral approach has some parallels to issues explored in the above piece. Sam Allberry’s response on Christianity Today is worth reading, not only as Sam refutes Stanley’s approach but as a man who is same sex attracted, these issues are personal. I appreciate the way Sam neither dilutes Gospel clarity nor Gospel compassion, doctrinal truth or pastoral grace. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/october-web-only/andy-stanley-unconditional-conference-theology-lgbt.html

Baptists haven’t sold their soul, they are following God’s heart.

/ MurrayCampbell

No, Baptists have not sold their soul over same-sex marriage. What they have chosen is faithfulness to God and upholding gospel unity.

New South Wales Baptists have reaffirmed the Bible’s teaching on marriage and are following Jesus’ teaching on human sexuality. They have also reaffirmed the importance of the Baptist doctrine basis by requiring accredited pastors and churches to affirm these statements.

While the majority of Baptist delegates have supported the motions, not everyone is happy and for several different reasons. Some dissenters don’t subscribe to Baptist theological beliefs nor do they accept the classical definition of marriage. Indeed, among those who reject the classical understanding of marriage, they often find issues with many other basic Christian beliefs. There are others Baptists, who have expressed concern at the NSW and ACT decisions because they value the idea of autonomy over and above other baptist principles. 

Erin Martine Sessions is a delegate at the NSW and ACT Baptist Assembly. She is one of a minority of baptists who disagrees with the direction taken in NSW and she’s written a piece on the ABC Religion and Ethics site, ‘Have Baptists just sold their soul over same-sex marriage?’

At times, it is hard to manoeuvre around Martine Sessions’ use of language and hyperbole. Describing the meeting as The Red Assembly is kind of silly.  Invoking the Spanish Inquisition and using analogies such as stake burning and the  Spanish Second Republic-inspired thought-policing, does little to forward this important discussion. And the inclusion of Moore College and Sydney Anglican as a wink-wink swear word is a cheap and unnecessary shot.

Let’s look beyond the colourful and misleading rhetoric and point out two basic problems with Martine Sessions’ argument, namely that the Assembly decisions go against Baptist principles.

First of all, the author neglects much of Baptist history. It is true that Baptists view autonomy highly, but it is also true that Baptists in association gather around shared theological foundations. Both things are true. She asks,

“Why did we suddenly depart from history and make a new category of statements we must support? To put it bluntly, because Baptists don’t have a doctrine of marriage”

Throughout the history of the Church, many confessions, statements, and creeds have come about as the result of doctrinal crises, social change, and political necessity. It’s not as though these beliefs only came into existence when a Council met or Assembly approved, but rather,  what was already orthodox became formally recognised in writing. Issues surrounding sexuality, marriage, and gender are but the latest theological and moral ground that requires Churches to affirm Biblical teaching. Historically, Baptists are not exempt from or non-participants in this process. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Baptists historically associate together around common theological convictions. Indeed Baptists have written and affirmed more statements of faith and association than possibly any other Protestant denomination. 

in the case of marriage, in 2011 Australian Baptists Ministries affirmed that marriage is, “the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. Baptist marriage celebrants can only conduct weddings according to this definition. Although, there are examples of pastors and churches deliberately circumventing these rules in a variety of ways, and thus acting against Baptist belief and practice.

This position on marriage was not invented in 2011, rather due to social and political changes, baptist leaders wisely decided that it’s necessary to make explicit in writing what has always been the case, indeed, to affirm what is the historic Christian understanding of marriage. 

For Martine Sessions to claim the NSW motions are unBaptist, is to grab hold of one strand of baptist thought and to ignore the others. Baptists have always made and required statements of faith and practice for association. As someone pointed out to me, it’s somewhat amusing to read that in order to reject Baptist confessionalism, she relies on a confession of sorts, one that she teaches her students!

The article also underplays how the issues at hand relate to vital Christian beliefs upon which fellowship is had or not. The majority of churches understand that this is the case. Martine Sessions misrepresents the nature of the topic at hand when asserting, they don’t want to associate ‘with people and churches who think differently to them’. This isn’t just about ‘thinking differently’, this is about believing basic, obvious, and essential Christian teaching. To categorise the issues as a matter of ‘thinking differently’ is quite an understatement.

For an association to not only exist but grow and be healthy, there need to be shared values, identity and purpose. No one is suggesting uniformity across the board, but agreement upon the basics. Advocates who place autonomy near the top of the list often have a habit of limiting or downplaying what is required for association. I happen to think that the autonomy of the local church is an important principle, but I also note that an association of churches, by definition, requires sufficiently shared common ground. The issues at hand are, contrary to Martine Sessions, crucial and necessary for genuine Christian unity and partnership. How can fellowship exist when there isn’t shared belief in the same Gospel? How can churches partner in mission together when one says repentance isn’t required and the other says it is? How can churches serve together when one accepts the words of Jesus about marriage and another does not?

We can’t disconnect our view on marriage from other parts of Christian theology. Those small number of pastors and churches who no longer accept the Baptist view on marriage are also redefining many more Christian teachings, including the gospel itself and sexual morality and repentance and our doctrine of scripture. 

Imagine a player at a cricket club who decides that they no follow the rules for LBW. In their mind, it’s an unfair rule and disadvantages players who like to use their pads in front of the stumps. Or what of a coach who declares that instead of playing cricket, the team should be playing a hybrid version of cricket/ golf, as though golf will broaden the appeal of the game and attract more players. In both cases, the answer is no. One may reject the shape of the game and one can call it whatever you like, but it’s not cricket. As someone who has been part of cricket clubs for over 10 years, I suspect that any player or coach who tried to introduce such changes would be told either to shape up or move on. I realise the examples are somewhat goofy, but the point is clear.

When Jesus defines sexual relations outside marriage as immoral and when the Apostles describe sexual relations outside marriage as keeping people outside God’s Kingdom and contrary to the Gospel, how can baptist churches argue that we can remain in partnership together? 

Surely, it comes down to the question, do baptists believe we can associate & partner with churches/pastors who hold, teach (and at times, practice) SSM? (and the theological corollaries that give rise to and flow from this position).  The majority of delegates in NSW have said the answer is no, while a significant minority indicate the answer is yes (they may not agree with SSM but believe it is possible and even desirable to partner with SSM affirming churches. The issue isn’t just autonomy, but it’s also about what theological and spiritual unity is required to work together 

I appreciate how a lot of Christians are concerned about using categories of sin in relation to marriage and sex. Doesn’t it make evangelism more difficult? Doesn’t it come across as harsh and unloving. What are we saying to our neighbours by insisting on our churches sticking with classical marriage? Aren’t we saying, that Jesus knows best? Aren’t we saying, that people matter so much that we won’t let our churches blow here and there along with the current cultural whim? Aren’t we saying that God’s vision for humanity surpasses the dominant view in any society? Aren’t we saying, that in Christ, both truth and love are found and that both holiness and mercy are uncovered?

These Baptist motions follow a similar trajectory to Jesus who, when confronted by progressive ideas about marriage and sex, reaffirmed the Biblical pattern. Of course, orthodoxy without love is like a saucepan lid crashing onto a tile floor. However, love without orthodoxy is nothing more than sentimentalism that misleads. We don’t need to choose between truth and love, for they are necessary and beautiful partners. In Christ, we see truth and love in perfect union. It is unloving for Christians to affirm same sex marriage or to teach that God is okay with forms of sexual expression that contradict his word. For Baptists to affirm Jesus’ teaching is not less than unifying, it is essential for maintaining genuine Christian unity. 

Erin Martine Sessions is one of a number of baptists who are concerned by the events at last weekend’s NSW Gathering. I have already responded to the arguments put forward by Mike Frost (whose ideas I believe shaped Martine Sessions own article). Others are thankful that Baptists are declaring their faith in God and trusting his word and ways, and acknowledging that partnering together into the future is more faithful and fruitful when we can soundly affirm the foundations of the faith. 

New South Wales Baptist motions should be welcomed warmly and not with frost

/ MurrayCampbell

New South Wales and ACT Baptists are meeting tomorrow to discuss and decide an issue that denominations across the world are facing. There are a set of motions requiring churches and accredited pastors to affirm “Marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God as a lifelong faithful union of one man and one woman. Sexual intimacy outside such a marriage relationship is incompatible with God’s intention for us as his people”.

The topic is broader than sexuality. In 2021 the NSW & ACT Assembly affirmed that both churches and accredited pastors be required to affirm the “basic doctrines, objects and values of the Association”

A detailed read of the motions can be found on John Sandeman’s blog.

Depending on the outcome of the Assembly meeting, Baptist Churches that don’t affirm these positions may be required to leave the association and pastors lose their accreditation. This is of course a significant subject and one where we pray Christians will speak and listen graciously and especially listen to and believe what God has spoken in the Bible. Affirming marriage should not be a controversial issue among churches, and it is a sad indictment on churches that there is any dispute or disagreement here. To believe that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman and that all other sexual relationships are sinful is doing nothing more than believing what Jesus taught and what the Apostles affirmed. 

Sydney Baptist and Morling College lecturer, Mike Frost, has expressed disagreement with the move. He has written an article to presumably dissuade delegates from supporting the motions. While he is not saying that he supports same-sex marriage (I suspect he doesn’t), he argues that baptists can and should remain together even when we disagree over this issue. Frost’s position is problematic for several reasons. 

First, he makes an important category error. He puts same-sex marriage under the umbrella of ‘non-core issues’.  He uses the phrase repeatedly throughout his piece and he concludes with this sentence,

“But instead of rallying to fulfill these bold visions for Christian mission, we’re debating the ins and outs of how to expel a tiny number of churches that don’t agree with the majority on yet another non-core issue.”

Contrary to what Frost asserts, our understanding of sexual relations is a primary issue. Our understanding of sexuality and marriage is connected to our view of Jesus, the Bible, the nature of sin and salvation, and more. Jesus was clear when he described sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman is porneia.

The Apostle Paul is also clear, 

“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Jesus and Paul define homosexual relations as sinful and keeping people outside the Kingdom of God. I don’t see how Frost can declare that this is ‘yet another non-core issue’ when the Bible is pretty clear that it is.

In 1 Timothy Paul spells out as unambiguously as anywhere in the Bible how any sexual relations outside marriage contradict sound doctrine and the gospel,

“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”

Mike Frost telling his readers that this is a non-core issue doesn’t stack up according to the Scriptures. These are not matters on which Christians can agree to disagree. This is a primary matter. Where people cannot agree on the gospel, how can there be partnership and association?

Second, Mike Frost makes another category error. His heading proposes that requiring common assent to Baptist doctrine is, ‘Breaking up the family in pursuit of uniformity’. 

The suggestion of uniformity is misleading. This isn’t about uniformity, it is about standing together on clear and gospel issues.

No Baptist is asking for agreement on every dot and flick and iota. No Baptist is demanding a uniform position on eschatology or the gifts of the Spirit. No one is asking for uniformity in the style of church service. Frost’s own article provides several examples of where Baptists have agreed to disagree. In suggesting that same-sex marriage is on par with these other issues is a serious mistake. Again, if Jesus calls an activity sin and if Paul says an activity keeps a person outside the Kingdom of God, how can we partner with churches who teach this harmful idea?

Genuine Christian unity is both theological and spiritual,  and the two belong together. Paul writes to the Ephesians, 

“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ”

Unity requires speaking truth in love and standing against teaching that is false and dangerous. It is because Christian unity is so precious, that remaining in that which unites is of such importance

I have argued elsewhere that baptists historically have written and affirmed doctrinal statements and positions when the need arose. There is a popular view today among Baptists that we are anti-creedal and that we don’t want or need statements of faith in order to join together. The saying, ‘no creed but Christ’ may sound appealing, but it’s neither historically true nor wise.

Throughout 400 years of Baptist history, various baptist fellowships have written confessions and statements of doctrine and required assent to them. One of the little-known facts about baptists is that we have more doctrinal statements than probably every other protestant denomination! The desire among NSW baptist churches to stand on the Christian view of marriage (and more) isn’t less than baptist, it is in keeping with many baptists historically (including those in Australia).

Third, Frost speaks of a bold vision for mission, but how can there be a shared mission when churches (or pastors) don’t share the same message? 

Mission is about telling people the good news of Jesus Christ, but if two churches believe two different gospels, how we can partner together?

For instance, Baptist pastors and churches who support same-sex marriage do not accept that repentance is required, rather these relationships should be celebrated by churches. How can two churches go on mission together when one says repentance is necessary and the other says it is not?

Our neighbours and communities don’t need churches that play the lyrebird and mimic back to them their own moral and spiritual proclivities. The gospel of Jesus Christ is far more compelling, subverting and beautiful.

I recall an observation made last year by British historian Tom Holland, 

“I see no point in bishops or preachers or Christian evangelists just recycling the kind of stuff you can get from any kind of soft left liberal because everyone is giving that…if they’ve got views on original sin I would be very interested to hear that”.

Affirming basic Christian beliefs will serve our churches well and our local communities. Anything else is a pathway to a brittle skeletal institutionalism and an irrelevance to the Kingdom God is building.

While it’s great to hear Mike Frost advocating mission, he’s sticking a cork in the breach here. How can shared mission take place when there isn’t agreement on the gospel and what it means to repent and what it means to be saved? Indeed how can there be partnership in any meaningful way when the very thing that unites Christians is disputed and even denied by some?

While Frost wants everyone to keep singing together, the reality is those baptists who advocate same-sex marriage are singing a different song; with different lyrics and melody. Their position not only contradicts the formal position on marriage, some are actively seeking to change this established position. The point is, these Baptists are unlikely to be satisfied until such time the denomination has changed to Australia’s latest views on sexuality and gender. After all, if they are serious about this being a justice and gospel issue, as I have often heard, how can they rest until the baptist view accepts same-sex weddings and marriages?

The notion that we can and will all live together in a joyful forward movement mission is somewhat disingenuous, given the ambition of some baptists is to change core baptist convictions. 

I’m praying for tomorrow’s meeting. Of course, it is difficult. If our churches are not able to have these important conversations and if we are not prepared to affirm the very things for which Christ died, then what are we about? God honours the faithfulness of his people. It may not win us popularity votes or praise in ecclesial halls, but there is something remarkably simple and attractive and good about faithfulness and sticking with what God says.

The people who often suffer most through these conversations are same-sex attracted Christians who believe in Jesus and are living faithful and celibate lives for the sake of the Kingdom. To have churches teaching that they need not repent and should instead live out their desires is a great and terrible disservice to these brothers and sisters. Should we not support and encourage them in godliness by affirming the same Gospel together?

I trust other State Unions may look at what is transpiring in NSW and find courage to also stand and make these clear affirmations and positions for the sake of the Gospel around Australia.