As ministers as well as churches are now being required to conform to the traditional understanding of marriage as a “covenant relationship ordained by God as a lifelong faithful union of one man and one woman,” to remain in the Baptist Association of NSW and the ACT, a middle ground position has been suggested by some.
This middle ground is often described as “supporting Baptist distinctives”, meaning support for liberty of conscience. Often, this middle position is characterised by not taking a stance on same-sex marriage, which is why it is considered a middle position, simply advocating for liberty. Others opposed to the NSW and ACT Baptist Association’s marriage policy do want space to take part in a same sex marriage or to affirm partnered LGBTQ people.
The useful word “compatibilist” was invented during the United Methodist debates on homosexuality. “Compatibilists,” whatever their personal views on same sex marriage, believe that there is room for differing views on same-sex marriage, gay ministers and similar topics in a church network or denomination.
Either side of this group, on the left and right, are “incompatibilists”, those who believe one view only should be allowed. The NSW/ACT Baptists have adopted a “conservative incompatibilist” approach – with ministers and churches being required to affirm traditional man-woman only marriage.
“Affirming” Churches with an official position in favour of same sex marriage, gay clergy are “progressive compatibilist” in this unofficial Uniting Methodist terminology. (The US United Methodists have now split with a loss of 7658 congregations during a window for optional departures in 2022 and 2023).
Perhaps oddly, for a statement that has led to the purge of Churches and Ministers, the NSW and ACT Baptists’ position statement on marriage does not form part of their “Statement of beliefs” but is part of a separate list of “Position Statements.”
Reflecting the tension in adopting their position statement on marriage, the NSW and ACT Baptist Assembly also adopted a position statement at the same time, affirming “Local Church Autonomy and Healthy Association.” This affirmed the right of an association of Baptist churches to “mutually discern the mind of Christ so that in a partnership of support and care based on shared convictions, objects and values.”
What we are seeing play out as churches leave the NSW and ACT Baptist Association is the principle of Church Autonomy, as defined by that debate – the churches are free to leave, they are not closed, while the association is free to discern and adopt a position. We are now seeing that ministers, too, are being told they must go.
Baptists rightly highly prize liberty.
But there are two main obstacles to applying it against the marriage position statement.
The first is that to set aside the marriage statement – or to set aside any enforcement of it – is to place same sex marriage in the category of “things indifferent” or “adiaphora”, meaning matters in theology or ethics that are neither commanded nor forbidden by religious law or doctrine.
Which is itself a theological position. To argue against the Baptist marriage statement purely on liberty of conscience grounds is at least to say that a policy of forbidding same sex marriage is not justified by Scripture.
There is also a subset of Baptist people committed to affirming same sex marriage who would regard the adiaphora label as an anathema. To them, the extension of marriage in the church to LGBTQIA people is far from an indifferent matter. Some of them are married to a same sex partner, and some now attend a fully affirming Church.
So whichever way the NSW and ACT Baptists had decided, there would have been a group disaffected and most likely departing. If a freedom/liberty scenario had been adopted—the adiaphora position—then the many strong conservatives most likely would have pulled out. (We’ll never know because that did not happen.)
Although it is worth noting that strong conservatives have stayed in the Baptist Union of Victoria despite that body having had churches led by gay pastors.
However, as it is, the progressives are the ones leaving the Baptist Association in NSW and the ACT.
As reported by The Other Cheek, “Baptists go Uniting,” there is a growing contingent of former NSW Baptists taking up paid positions in the Uniting Church. The Other Cheek understands there have been more since we published that list. For a significant proportion of these, the move towards a conservative stance by the NSW and ACT Baptists made the Uniting Church an option. It is essential to note that some of these individuals took on a new role without reference to the developments in the Baptist Assembly.
Officially, the Uniting Church has two marriage rites, with a new rite to allow same-gender marriages (the Uniting Church term) alongside their traditional rite.
This presents the second obstacle to a middle ground position for Baptists. We might refer to this as the Peter Bentley objection. Here’s how Bentley, who led the conservative movement, Assembly of Confessing Congregations in the Uniting Church, until that movement’s closure, has expressed this point in a comment on The Other Cheek threads.
“Noting this is about marriage celebration, there is a particular legal context here that is seemingly neglected. This particular Baptist association is a recognised denomination for the purposes of the Marriage Act in Australia, and any celebrant (a minister of religion of a recognised denomination under Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part IV) is obliged to use the particular rites or form of marriage ceremony recognised by the denomination. In this case, the approved rite and its theological basis is intimately connected to being a recognised denomination, and this is clearly founded in their belief that marriage is a covenant between one woman and one man. I understand this theological understanding has never been changed.”
This means that to grant liberty of conscience to those who wish to have same sex marriages and same sex clergy in the Baptist church, the denomination would need to adopt a same sex marriage rite, or perhaps have two rites like the Uniting Church.
While individual ministers, members and churches would still be able to hold to their particular theology of marriage, the denomination as a whole would have to make a declaration that it accepted/tolerated same sex marriages.
At the denominational level, there is no middle ground – short of opting out of the Marriage Act.
There is only one male & female in Covernant of marriage , please do listen to the world God made man & woman
‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot! So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!’
Opting out of the Marriage Act would be a sensible position. Why should pastors be agents of the State?
However, if we do stay with the Act, the actually are no prescribed Baptist Church marriage rites. I used a modified Australian Anglican service with some Filipino components, as we had several Filipinos in the church.
Baptists began as an association of Christians with differing views on predestination; while Arminian General Baptists weren’t strongly represented in colonial Australia, the distinction between Calvinist Fullerists and Wesleyans were slight, while the more strictly Calvinist Baptists in the other end of the early Association weren’t far from the Strict and Particular Baptists who refused to associate with the rest.
Today we have Wesleyans, Dispensationists and classical Calvinists bundled together — matters much closer to the grounds of salvation than same sex marriage — and don’t expel pastors or churches for holding those views. Why, then, make marriage a test case?
It seems to me that the real issue here is not doctrine, but power, and what needs to be addressed is not how different people read scripture, but how a small group of vocal pastors are “proving” their power by determining whom they can expel. And that, for all the theological trappings, is evil.