Hi Dan Like a previous responder, I am an accredited Baptist Minister and have been listening in to your channel with interest for some time. Much of your analysis is very good, but there are some peculiarities (a very apt word) in the Baptist set up, of which you couldn't be expected to be aware, which have some important bearing on this situation. Essentially, as someone else has commented, the Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB) were discussing this issue because they were asked to do so in a letter signed by many Baptist ministers - a request they have a right to make under BUGB's Constitution. Having been formally asked to change the rules, BUGB had an obligation to explore the matter and they have been very thorough and consultative in the way that they have sought to answer that request (over four years!), which very much matches Baptist ecclesiology. This brings us to the nub of the issue. The Ministerial Recognition Rules, which govern the conduct of Accredited Baptist Ministers, are the only thing over which BUGB has direct influence in the local church. This is because BUGB is not a denomination as such, but a voluntary covenant of individual and autonomous churches (by the way, "Baptists Together" is just a rebranding of BUGB, probably designed to reflect this reality more accurately). BUGB and its derivative regional associations can advise local churches, but they cannot tell them what to do. Hence, Baptist churches have always been able to appoint any minister they choose (they don't have to be ordained as ministers, or even be vetted by any denomination). In practice, many Baptist churches will only appoint officially Accredited Baptist Ministers (who often are ordained, though they don't have to be), but they can appoint anyone. This church autonomy is highly prized in most Baptist churches (I would personally say too highly prized). Thus any central statement issued by BUGB has to tread carefully so as not to appear to impinge upon the autonomy of each local church. In reality, then, the decision not to change the Ministerial Recognition Rules is about as strong a statement as BUGB can make on this issue (we don't have a credal statement as such - the Declaration of Principle is about as close as we get to that). However, our autonomy may also make it easier for churches and ministers to remain in covenant with one another, even when they strongly disagree with the decisions or beliefs of others in the union, since their practices do not necessarily reflect as strongly on ours. That probably goes some way to explaining why the percentages were different between what BUGB's Ministerial Rules should say, and whether or not churches and ministers could remain in the union if the rules were changed; for the Rules represent the official doctrine of BUGB as a whole on this matter, whereas the practice of individual churches do not. Of course, that all raises the question as to how individual churches "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit" can interpret Scripture in opposite ways. My answer to that is fairly simple. Churches are made up of fallible, imperfect people. They are also strongly influenced by the teaching they receive from their leaders. I don't believe the Holy Spirit gives different guidance to different churches, but churches may be more open or less open to hear his guidance. Personally, I grieve the fact that the request was ever made to change the rules. It has led to great hurt and division. On the other hand, it has mobilised the more evangelical Baptists into being more concerned about what happens within BUGB circles, where previously they were largely focussed primarily on building God's Kingdom through the local church. I feared that BUGB would find in favour of changing the rules, and I for one would not have been able to stay in the union had it done so. I am, therefore, greatly relieved that as a central body, they have decided to uphold what I consider to be the Bible's clear teaching on this subject. I know that individual churches may now go their own way to get round the rules, but for me I have a different level of connection to those churches than to the union as a whole. I hope this is helpful in helping you understand the peculiarities of the Baptist set up more clearly. Thanks for all you do in putting these videos out.
So, they are saying that scripture is absolute, but each congregation has the right to deviate from scripture. Oddly enough today I read an older blog entry by Abp. Haverland of the ACC about how the belief that one can change the faith is what tore apart the TEC in America and the CoE in Great Britain.
This is not a helpfull explanation. Scripture is indeed absolute, but it still has to be interpreted. Of course each congregation has the right to interpret scripture as God gives them the wisdom to do so. After all, individuals do. The point about the Baptist Union of Great Britain, as other people in the comments have said, is that it is a UNION, not a denomination as such. There is no overall saintly bishop, or cardinal, or Pope who can insist on an specific set of rules. Each congregation is self-governing and can make whatever rules it likes (within the constraints of English common law). If an individual church chooses to deny the urgings of the Holy Spirit and instead insists on embracing error, that's an awful thing and they will suffer for it, but it is their lookout because God gives each person the freedom of will to choose. The Baptist Union has no power to insist they adopt anything. The declaration of principle of the Union is what Baptist churches affirm. If they find they cannot accept the declaration, then they will simply leave. Over the years many have, for a variety of reasons. There are lots of Baptist churches in the UK that are not in the union.
@@davidsprouse151 Yes I concur. We all have our individual "takes" on how things are and should be, a distillation of our own experiences and how far we have let God into our lives. The problem with the opposing sides in this argument is that it has moved on from "I think I'm right and you are wrong" to "I KNOW I am right and because you don't agree there's something wrong with you and you need to be defeated" which betrays a great deal of hubris and a lack of empathy for your brothers and sisters.
That's not what is said. Scripture is the absolute standard but it is recognised that there may be different understandings. That happens everywhere. Baptists are evangelical.
@@vandpubsell every generation of protestants think they've come up with something new. Or, that these 'end times' are different than what's come before. It's disturbing. At least the rcc has thought through these things. At least someone has.
Just seems to me like the "rot" and heresy has spread from the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church to the Catholic Church, the Baptist Churches and threatens the other evangelical churches. Whatever denomination we are, we're under attack and need to stand firm.
One thing I would point out that might be relevant to this discussion, is that a considerable number of Baptist Ministers in the UK are ex-Methodists, or were trained by the Methodists or in Methodist training colleges.
In the Baptist denomination every local church is self governing. The minister/pastor is literally hired and can be fired by the Church meeting. The Baptist Union has NO AUTHORITY to dictate to the local congregation. The Baptist Union is a union of Baptist congregations. It is the case, and has happened countless times that ministers have been sacked by their congregation and the Union has no power to stop it. In 1970 I as called to be pastor of the 4th largest church in one of the Associations of the Baptist Union. The Area Superintendent put pressure on me not to accept the call, but he could not and did not stop it because of the polity of the Union, having no jurisdiction over the local congregation. A former Baptist colleague visited me on one occasion after I had left the denomination and told me that he had been "sacked" by the Church meeting, adding, "I was the third of five in 5 months". An Anglican colleague described it as "the jungle of the "free?" church".
Given that the Baptist church allows local churches to decide that a minister is no longer appropriate for them, perhaps because of their behaviour (e.g. a safeguarding issue) or their teaching (typically a [false] doctrine issue), I would prefer that approach to the trial by Clergy Discipline Measure in the Church of England. My reason for this is that the people in a local church know the individual and can tell when relationships have irretrievably broken down, whereas the CDM process is largely conducted by outsiders, who don't know the reality of what has occurred over (sometimes) a long period of time. Given that Baptist churches pay for their own ministers (unlike Anglican ones paid for out of diocesan funds regardless of a parish's level of giving), if over half a congregation wishes to dismiss a minister, then it seems unlikely that they will continue to give to the church at the same level if some of their giving is to fund a minister in whom they have little or no trust. It also means that pastoral relationships are likely to have broken down and so, if the minister remains, folk will leave so that they can be pastored by someone in whom they can trust. I left a Baptist church for these very reasons, having become fed up with persistent lying and bullying by the minister. The individual was dismissed, more than a year later, by the church and, thankfully, is no longer an accredited minister of the Baptist Union. (their accreditation was withdrawn by the Union).
@@andysmith4158You can tell the CofE is the state church just by its structure; it resembles the civil service in as much as it is insanely and unnecessarily complicated to the point that the machine just keeps inching towards the place it wants to be and any challenge to that is swallowed up by bureaucracy to the point that the complainant just gives up and walks away.
Actually it's very difficult to remove a minister in most Baptist churches. You need a two-thirds vote and the minister still has employment rights even though an office holder.
I'm an accredited Baptist minister, been following your videos for some time. I wouldn’t claim to be a Baptist history expert, but I understand that our Declaration of Principle (the BUGB doesn’t have a full statement of faith like EA) was created to allow particular (calvinist) and general (arminian) Baptist networks to come together - hence allowing churches to discern the Spirit's leading on interpreting Scripture. Over recent years, the right to congregational interpretation has been stretched too far, leading to this process. In our discussions I found that the Ministers seeking to change the rules often downgraded the Scripture in some way, left some scriptures out of the debate, or intpretated scripture through society's lens rather than vice-versa. Well done on your analysis of the report - I haven’t managed that yet myself.
What needs to be made clear is the nonsensical position which says that each church may interpret the Scriptures under the Holy Spirit - but churches do come to different conclusions as illustrated in the figures presented. How can the Holy Spirit who breathed out the Scriptures lead churches to a diverse view on a given subject.
Simple they are led by their flesh and lie - the Holy Spirit cannot possibly give contradictory direction. God is not a man that He should lie. [Num 23:19]
But God conveyed that via language. Some signifiers change via culture. The signified evolves. God intended it this way. Some people are more comfortable with ambiguities than others.
@davidsprouse151 You miss my point! My point is that God in three persons who has infinite wisdom and knowledge has given us one book with one meaning - the Holy Spirit will not and cannot lead people to different end points. Thus my description of such a position as being nonsensical, which it is. God has spoken! God does not change. His word does not change. His plan for mankind does not change. The way of salvation does not change. The gospel does not change.
@davidsprouse151 Scripture was “breathed out” by the Holy Spirit. Holy men of old were moved by the Holy Spirit….2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Scripture cannot have multiple meanings. End of.
Dan, I'd be interested to know whether you think agreeing to disagree on gender roles (complementarian vs egalitarian) and not taking an position officially and allowing individual congregations to decide (as which is what the Baptist Union have done as far as I'd understand) is what has eventually lead to the increasing tolerance of same-sex marriage within some churches? i.e: if you go 'soft' and 'gender neutral' on Paul's teaching about male leadership in church and in marriage, you can quite easily end up going soft on teaching about Paul's teaching about sexuality - that marriage too is 'gender neutral'. Obviously, I know that charismatic Anglicans, Vineyard church and Pentecostals who are egalitarian and definitely haven't caved in to cultural pressure, but I wondering if you still think there is a link? Also do you think that these Baptist Union churches which are pro same sex marriage, were always a bit too influenced by a 'Christianity lite' social justice gospel and not one of personal transformation, long before this was an issue? And this is merely them being finally weeded out.
Human influence over God's Word. Unbelieable! There should be no discussion or prayer needed. Read and follow God's Word/Instruction on how to live and follow it.
@@susanbender6029 I was just wondering why you bother if you think "There should be no discussion or prayer needed" and that you can just "read and follow God's Word/instruction"
@@vandpubsell to know what the bible says and folow it. It is amazing how many people are influenced by the twisting of God's Word because the people do not read the bible and study it themselves but take people's "interpretation" of having it the way they want it to say.
An interesting listen; I've stopped attending my CofE church of 10 years since just before Christmas, that December stealth move when all ministers were tied up with Christmas preparations was the final straw and unbecoming of what you would hope and expect from a church. I'm in a holding pattern at the moment weighing up options, and have moved 'online' whilst I dwell on next options. My online church is a Providence Baptist that I very much enjoy; my local options I've narrowed to an Evangelical, Baptist and CoG (Pentecostal). I was erring towards the Baptist church before this, and this report has moved me further in that direction.
its much better to have fellowship you know, better for you, and much better for the newer believers to have spiritual fathers around. hard though it is.
@@mikecrees9715 "its much better to have fellowship you know..." Why so? Isn't that like staying in the same job for 30 years because its safe when you know you really should be challenging yourself? Anyway, this was a month or so ago, since this post we have popped into our our local Baptist and Evangelical churches. The Baptist was okay, a little effeminate for our tastes but the small, somewhat elderly evangelical church was great. The calm authoritative teaching was spiritually refreshing and at no point did I feel they were going to break into praying for fair-trade teabags or climate grifters.
In the 1870s, the two Baptist groups wanted to join together. There was a problem over the independence of each church and having a governing document of any sort. Spurgeon argued that there should be a statement of faith as he believed the weaker declaration of principle opened the Baptist union to problems down the line. He was ignored but has been proved to be right. Many churches had written to the BU Council threatening to leave if they voted in favour. I agree that the big issue is the covenant relationship. How can churches with totally opposite views on Scripture be in covenantal relationship?
As a church deacon involved in this debate in our local Baptist church, I wish they'd never started it. All it's done is highlight a very polarised position across the BU that's bridged by a massive group of don't-knows/don't care/abstainers in the middle who seem only to want 'unity' at whatever cost - which is the Truth, of course.
@andyburns4336 Our church refused to take part in the consultation as we believed that when something is clear in scriptures that there shouldn't be a consultation. We voted to leave the BU if they voted in favour of the change.
We were appalled by the very question being asked, but felt we should respond (as a diaconate, not a church, whom we protected). The problem with not engaging is that those views haven't been registered, although it is a valid and Godly position to take.
The mere fact they were even discussing it as a possibility has crossed a line. The ships are going down but G'd is creating life boats for those wanting to be saved.
Davidwood4374. So true, God is also sending younger ones with true Christian believers in his new places of worship through England and around the world who stay true to his teachings. Marriage between Man and Woman is a covenant with our God our father. Not same sex couples.✝️🙏
The Union is discussing it because a significant number of churches and ministers in the union asked the council to consider the change, as they have a right to do. However, as Rev Dan makes clear, a considerable majority did not accept the alteration. However, I do accept there is a problem. Having been to the Baptist assembly last year, I am pretty sure there is a liberal "woke" pressure group within the Baptist Union that is advocating and coordinating attempts to change the declaration, and, as is the wont of such groups, they are not going to consider this decision as definitive. In short, they will try again, probably on some other tack.
Well done Rev. Dan this was a great breakdown not easy for us who are in the middle of this. Sadly for many of us Ministers the "firmish" stand is not a stand at all.
Well at least there is mainly good news on this for once. The Baptists have decided not sign their own death warrant going by the effect accepting so-called gay marriage has had on other denominations. Invoking 'love' to negate sin hasn't happened on this occasion.
Hi Rev. Dan The Christian Powers that BE, Are Soo taken up with “ non- Biblical Matters” of 3% of People taking over and Dominating! The Main Theme of The Christian Walk and “JESUS”is Being Diminished! People are Floundering and Being Lost.. From Accepting and Living a Christ And Holy Spiritual filled Life! Prayers For You. And Our Current Christian situation World over! 🎉🙏🏻✝️
I'm from a Baptist family background but was baptized in the United Methodist Church around the age of five. I lived in Huntsville, Alabama when same sex marriage became legal and went to the park downtown to see the public show they had. There was a female pastor from a Baptist church with a bunch of LGBT people telling their experiences. One girl cried talking about her extra parent 😅. It was a drama. I think the local southern Baptist association later fired the female pastor or disafiliated the church for performing a same sex marriage then the government changed the laws so that you can get married in AL by signing a form and getting it notarized without an officiant. I later found out that a guy I knew from one of the local pubs was the first to get a same sex marriage in Alabama. He and his spouse own on duplex on the way to the beer store from my buddy's house that we used to walk by, and he told me one day when were going to get more beer when we stopped to say hi. His name was Jim, but people nicknamed him Jimberly. 😊
I think the breakdown in data is fascinating. The younger are more biblical among baptists. But what was more interesting by far was the gender breakdown. Females look to me more progressive/affirming. The question is for the CofE has anyone done a breakdown of views by gender. My great suspicion is that females are more affirming. In a world where we have female clergy, could this be what is driving the liberal agenda? After all it was not that long ago that the progressive pressure was for female clergy and for female bishops. If it is the case that women are more likely to abandon the orthodox view and be progressive, what does that say?
@@davidsprouse151 I don't understand your point here. Are you advocating a resurgence of the patriarchy on biblical rather than overbearing grounds of course, or are you saying that the patriarch had been so weak that they have needed the extra manpower (share the road)? or are you advocating a sort of50% representative egalitarianism? which does not answer the question raised.
@@mikecrees9715 I'm saying that the days of straight eurocentric,male sadomasochists are over. Jesus wasn't a sado masochist, so why are they? Others think and feel differently from you. Accept differences and move on. The church and society will with or without you.
@@davidsprouse151 I dont know any sado masochists, though its hard to not be euro-centric if you are from Europe. I dont see why being male is portrayed as being negative - some serious double think going in there. What is interesting here is regarding the euro-centrality of thinking, the social liberalism of the west is almost universally rejected in the non-European origin church. I'm in the CofE, and 70% of Anglican communion, and certainly almost all Anglicans in the global south, follow the faith in a far more orthodox and straightforward manner - those I know firmly believe that it is anew form of social colonialism that is attempting to force them to adhere to things they think are wicked. It usually has financial strings attached too, which is pretty ugly. Its a form of euro-centric racism that prevents them from following their faith based in the idea that they are too stupid to think for them selves.
@@davidsprouse151 one can easily accept difference where its on something pretty unimportant, but you see it has to kick both ways. on these topics what actually happens is a sort of enforced conformity to a new way of thinking, and over time where differences have been tolerated and accepted they then have to be endorsed and affirmed, or one is accused of not accepting or affirming the person with the view you disagree with. Not doing so becomes unacceptable, and actually the difference is not accepted at all by the very people that were accepted. I'm a mathematician and statistician, and what you call solipsism is actually a clear trend in the data. What is certainly the case, is that the intention is clearly that people who spot what has occurred are usually encouraged to "move on" and are refused the honour of having their differences accepted. such hypocrisy.
Hi Dan
Like a previous responder, I am an accredited Baptist Minister and have been listening in to your channel with interest for some time.
Much of your analysis is very good, but there are some peculiarities (a very apt word) in the Baptist set up, of which you couldn't be expected to be aware, which have some important bearing on this situation.
Essentially, as someone else has commented, the Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB) were discussing this issue because they were asked to do so in a letter signed by many Baptist ministers - a request they have a right to make under BUGB's Constitution. Having been formally asked to change the rules, BUGB had an obligation to explore the matter and they have been very thorough and consultative in the way that they have sought to answer that request (over four years!), which very much matches Baptist ecclesiology.
This brings us to the nub of the issue. The Ministerial Recognition Rules, which govern the conduct of Accredited Baptist Ministers, are the only thing over which BUGB has direct influence in the local church. This is because BUGB is not a denomination as such, but a voluntary covenant of individual and autonomous churches (by the way, "Baptists Together" is just a rebranding of BUGB, probably designed to reflect this reality more accurately). BUGB and its derivative regional associations can advise local churches, but they cannot tell them what to do. Hence, Baptist churches have always been able to appoint any minister they choose (they don't have to be ordained as ministers, or even be vetted by any denomination). In practice, many Baptist churches will only appoint officially Accredited Baptist Ministers (who often are ordained, though they don't have to be), but they can appoint anyone.
This church autonomy is highly prized in most Baptist churches (I would personally say too highly prized). Thus any central statement issued by BUGB has to tread carefully so as not to appear to impinge upon the autonomy of each local church. In reality, then, the decision not to change the Ministerial Recognition Rules is about as strong a statement as BUGB can make on this issue (we don't have a credal statement as such - the Declaration of Principle is about as close as we get to that).
However, our autonomy may also make it easier for churches and ministers to remain in covenant with one another, even when they strongly disagree with the decisions or beliefs of others in the union, since their practices do not necessarily reflect as strongly on ours. That probably goes some way to explaining why the percentages were different between what BUGB's Ministerial Rules should say, and whether or not churches and ministers could remain in the union if the rules were changed; for the Rules represent the official doctrine of BUGB as a whole on this matter, whereas the practice of individual churches do not.
Of course, that all raises the question as to how individual churches "under the guidance of the Holy Spirit" can interpret Scripture in opposite ways. My answer to that is fairly simple. Churches are made up of fallible, imperfect people. They are also strongly influenced by the teaching they receive from their leaders. I don't believe the Holy Spirit gives different guidance to different churches, but churches may be more open or less open to hear his guidance.
Personally, I grieve the fact that the request was ever made to change the rules. It has led to great hurt and division. On the other hand, it has mobilised the more evangelical Baptists into being more concerned about what happens within BUGB circles, where previously they were largely focussed primarily on building God's Kingdom through the local church. I feared that BUGB would find in favour of changing the rules, and I for one would not have been able to stay in the union had it done so. I am, therefore, greatly relieved that as a central body, they have decided to uphold what I consider to be the Bible's clear teaching on this subject. I know that individual churches may now go their own way to get round the rules, but for me I have a different level of connection to those churches than to the union as a whole.
I hope this is helpful in helping you understand the peculiarities of the Baptist set up more clearly. Thanks for all you do in putting these videos out.
So, they are saying that scripture is absolute, but each congregation has the right to deviate from scripture. Oddly enough today I read an older blog entry by Abp. Haverland of the ACC about how the belief that one can change the faith is what tore apart the TEC in America and the CoE in Great Britain.
This is not a helpfull explanation. Scripture is indeed absolute, but it still has to be interpreted. Of course each congregation has the right to interpret scripture as God gives them the wisdom to do so. After all, individuals do.
The point about the Baptist Union of Great Britain, as other people in the comments have said, is that it is a UNION, not a denomination as such. There is no overall saintly bishop, or cardinal, or Pope who can insist on an specific set of rules. Each congregation is self-governing and can make whatever rules it likes (within the constraints of English common law). If an individual church chooses to deny the urgings of the Holy Spirit and instead insists on embracing error, that's an awful thing and they will suffer for it, but it is their lookout because God gives each person the freedom of will to choose. The Baptist Union has no power to insist they adopt anything. The declaration of principle of the Union is what Baptist churches affirm. If they find they cannot accept the declaration, then they will simply leave. Over the years many have, for a variety of reasons. There are lots of Baptist churches in the UK that are not in the union.
@@vandpubsell I see all of the splintering as hubris. All of these issues have been litigated to death by the rcc.
@@davidsprouse151 Yes I concur. We all have our individual "takes" on how things are and should be, a distillation of our own experiences and how far we have let God into our lives. The problem with the opposing sides in this argument is that it has moved on from "I think I'm right and you are wrong" to "I KNOW I am right and because you don't agree there's something wrong with you and you need to be defeated" which betrays a great deal of hubris and a lack of empathy for your brothers and sisters.
That's not what is said. Scripture is the absolute standard but it is recognised that there may be different understandings. That happens everywhere. Baptists are evangelical.
@@vandpubsell every generation of protestants think they've come up with something new. Or, that these 'end times' are different than what's come before. It's disturbing. At least the rcc has thought through these things. At least someone has.
Just seems to me like the "rot" and heresy has spread from the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church to the Catholic Church, the Baptist Churches and threatens the other evangelical churches. Whatever denomination we are, we're under attack and need to stand firm.
One thing I would point out that might be relevant to this discussion, is that a considerable number of Baptist Ministers in the UK are ex-Methodists, or were trained by the Methodists or in Methodist training colleges.
Not at all. This was essentially a win for the more conservative elements of the Baptist Union.
In the Baptist denomination every local church is self governing. The minister/pastor is literally hired and can be fired by the Church meeting. The Baptist Union has NO AUTHORITY to dictate to the local congregation. The Baptist Union is a union of Baptist congregations. It is the case, and has happened countless times that ministers have been sacked by their congregation and the Union has no power to stop it. In 1970 I as called to be pastor of the 4th largest church in one of the Associations of the Baptist Union. The Area Superintendent put pressure on me not to accept the call, but he could not and did not stop it because of the polity of the Union, having no jurisdiction over the local congregation. A former Baptist colleague visited me on one occasion after I had left the denomination and told me that he had been "sacked" by the Church meeting, adding, "I was the third of five in 5 months". An Anglican colleague described it as "the jungle of the "free?" church".
Given that the Baptist church allows local churches to decide that a minister is no longer appropriate for them, perhaps because of their behaviour (e.g. a safeguarding issue) or their teaching (typically a [false] doctrine issue), I would prefer that approach to the trial by Clergy Discipline Measure in the Church of England. My reason for this is that the people in a local church know the individual and can tell when relationships have irretrievably broken down, whereas the CDM process is largely conducted by outsiders, who don't know the reality of what has occurred over (sometimes) a long period of time.
Given that Baptist churches pay for their own ministers (unlike Anglican ones paid for out of diocesan funds regardless of a parish's level of giving), if over half a congregation wishes to dismiss a minister, then it seems unlikely that they will continue to give to the church at the same level if some of their giving is to fund a minister in whom they have little or no trust. It also means that pastoral relationships are likely to have broken down and so, if the minister remains, folk will leave so that they can be pastored by someone in whom they can trust.
I left a Baptist church for these very reasons, having become fed up with persistent lying and bullying by the minister. The individual was dismissed, more than a year later, by the church and, thankfully, is no longer an accredited minister of the Baptist Union. (their accreditation was withdrawn by the Union).
@@andysmith4158You can tell the CofE is the state church just by its structure; it resembles the civil service in as much as it is insanely and unnecessarily complicated to the point that the machine just keeps inching towards the place it wants to be and any challenge to that is swallowed up by bureaucracy to the point that the complainant just gives up and walks away.
Actually it's very difficult to remove a minister in most Baptist churches. You need a two-thirds vote and the minister still has employment rights even though an office holder.
I'm an accredited Baptist minister, been following your videos for some time. I wouldn’t claim to be a Baptist history expert, but I understand that our Declaration of Principle (the BUGB doesn’t have a full statement of faith like EA) was created to allow particular (calvinist) and general (arminian) Baptist networks to come together - hence allowing churches to discern the Spirit's leading on interpreting Scripture. Over recent years, the right to congregational interpretation has been stretched too far, leading to this process. In our discussions I found that the Ministers seeking to change the rules often downgraded the Scripture in some way, left some scriptures out of the debate, or intpretated scripture through society's lens rather than vice-versa.
Well done on your analysis of the report - I haven’t managed that yet myself.
What needs to be made clear is the nonsensical position which says that each church may interpret the Scriptures under the Holy Spirit - but churches do come to different conclusions as illustrated in the figures presented. How can the Holy Spirit who breathed out the Scriptures lead churches to a diverse view on a given subject.
Simple they are led by their flesh and lie - the Holy Spirit cannot possibly give contradictory direction. God is not a man that He should lie. [Num 23:19]
But God conveyed that via language. Some signifiers change via culture. The signified evolves. God intended it this way. Some people are more comfortable with ambiguities than others.
@davidsprouse151 You miss my point! My point is that God in three persons who has infinite wisdom and knowledge has given us one book with one meaning - the Holy Spirit will not and cannot lead people to different end points. Thus my description of such a position as being nonsensical, which it is. God has spoken! God does not change. His word does not change. His plan for mankind does not change. The way of salvation does not change. The gospel does not change.
@andrewloose3419 it's inspired by the holy spirit it was written by men
@davidsprouse151 Scripture was “breathed out” by the Holy Spirit. Holy men of old were moved by the Holy Spirit….2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Scripture cannot have multiple meanings. End of.
Dan, I'd be interested to know whether you think agreeing to disagree on gender roles (complementarian vs egalitarian) and not taking an position officially and allowing individual congregations to decide (as which is what the Baptist Union have done as far as I'd understand) is what has eventually lead to the increasing tolerance of same-sex marriage within some churches? i.e: if you go 'soft' and 'gender neutral' on Paul's teaching about male leadership in church and in marriage, you can quite easily end up going soft on teaching about Paul's teaching about sexuality - that marriage too is 'gender neutral'. Obviously, I know that charismatic Anglicans, Vineyard church and Pentecostals who are egalitarian and definitely haven't caved in to cultural pressure, but I wondering if you still think there is a link?
Also do you think that these Baptist Union churches which are pro same sex marriage, were always a bit too influenced by a 'Christianity lite' social justice gospel and not one of personal transformation, long before this was an issue? And this is merely them being finally weeded out.
These are great questions 😊
Dan's not answering.🤓
@@davidsprouse151 I'd very much like to hear his response, as its something I've been mulling over for a long time.
I’m happy for them. Also you make great videos.
Thanks!
I'm very happy about the result - and quite surprised it was so definite.
Human influence over God's Word. Unbelieable! There should be no discussion or prayer needed. Read and follow God's Word/Instruction on how to live and follow it.
Susanbender6029 well said. Always stay in our lords teachings of the bible.
Do you not have sermons and bible studies in your church?
@@vandpubsell a bit strange you ask. Yes, very solid teachings, unless you think there are no churches that teach biblically anywhere.
@@susanbender6029 I was just wondering why you bother if you think "There should be no discussion or prayer needed" and that you can just "read and follow God's Word/instruction"
@@vandpubsell to know what the bible says and folow it. It is amazing how many people are influenced by the twisting of God's Word because the people do not read the bible and study it themselves but take people's "interpretation" of having it the way they want it to say.
An interesting listen; I've stopped attending my CofE church of 10 years since just before Christmas, that December stealth move when all ministers were tied up with Christmas preparations was the final straw and unbecoming of what you would hope and expect from a church. I'm in a holding pattern at the moment weighing up options, and have moved 'online' whilst I dwell on next options. My online church is a Providence Baptist that I very much enjoy; my local options I've narrowed to an Evangelical, Baptist and CoG (Pentecostal). I was erring towards the Baptist church before this, and this report has moved me further in that direction.
its much better to have fellowship you know, better for you, and much better for the newer believers to have spiritual fathers around. hard though it is.
@@mikecrees9715 "its much better to have fellowship you know..."
Why so? Isn't that like staying in the same job for 30 years because its safe when you know you really should be challenging yourself? Anyway, this was a month or so ago, since this post we have popped into our our local Baptist and Evangelical churches. The Baptist was okay, a little effeminate for our tastes but the small, somewhat elderly evangelical church was great. The calm authoritative teaching was spiritually refreshing and at no point did I feel they were going to break into praying for fair-trade teabags or climate grifters.
@@bobdobalina276 that's all good, I just know many that end up not going any where
Dan I send you this link ....Very interesting ...Happy Easter to you and your family
In the 1870s, the two Baptist groups wanted to join together. There was a problem over the independence of each church and having a governing document of any sort. Spurgeon argued that there should be a statement of faith as he believed the weaker declaration of principle opened the Baptist union to problems down the line. He was ignored but has been proved to be right. Many churches had written to the BU Council threatening to leave if they voted in favour. I agree that the big issue is the covenant relationship. How can churches with totally opposite views on Scripture be in covenantal relationship?
As a church deacon involved in this debate in our local Baptist church, I wish they'd never started it. All it's done is highlight a very polarised position across the BU that's bridged by a massive group of don't-knows/don't care/abstainers in the middle who seem only to want 'unity' at whatever cost - which is the Truth, of course.
@andyburns4336 Our church refused to take part in the consultation as we believed that when something is clear in scriptures that there shouldn't be a consultation. We voted to leave the BU if they voted in favour of the change.
We were appalled by the very question being asked, but felt we should respond (as a diaconate, not a church, whom we protected). The problem with not engaging is that those views haven't been registered, although it is a valid and Godly position to take.
The mere fact they were even discussing it as a possibility has crossed a line. The ships are going down but G'd is creating life boats for those wanting to be saved.
Davidwood4374. So true, God is also sending younger ones with true Christian believers in his new places of worship through England and around the world who stay true to his teachings. Marriage between Man and Woman is a covenant with our God our father. Not same sex couples.✝️🙏
The Union is discussing it because a significant number of churches and ministers in the union asked the council to consider the change, as they have a right to do. However, as Rev Dan makes clear, a considerable majority did not accept the alteration.
However, I do accept there is a problem. Having been to the Baptist assembly last year, I am pretty sure there is a liberal "woke" pressure group within the Baptist Union that is advocating and coordinating attempts to change the declaration, and, as is the wont of such groups, they are not going to consider this decision as definitive. In short, they will try again, probably on some other tack.
Actually the vote was essentially one for following a conservative view of scripture.
Well done Rev. Dan this was a great breakdown not easy for us who are in the middle of this. Sadly for many of us Ministers the "firmish" stand is not a stand at all.
Only my Baptist ancestors from the 19th century interest me, then. Some of them were ministers. They had a very strict chastity code.
Well at least there is mainly good news on this for once.
The Baptists have decided not sign their own death warrant going by the effect accepting so-called gay marriage has had on other denominations.
Invoking 'love' to negate sin hasn't happened on this occasion.
Why are they gay? Why would anyone choose that lifestyle if it were a choice?
Hi Rev. Dan
The Christian Powers that BE, Are Soo taken up with “ non- Biblical Matters” of 3% of People taking over and Dominating!
The Main Theme of The Christian Walk and “JESUS”is Being Diminished!
People are Floundering and Being Lost.. From Accepting and Living a Christ And Holy Spiritual filled Life!
Prayers For You. And Our Current Christian situation World over! 🎉🙏🏻✝️
I'm from a Baptist family background but was baptized in the United Methodist Church around the age of five. I lived in Huntsville, Alabama when same sex marriage became legal and went to the park downtown to see the public show they had. There was a female pastor from a Baptist church with a bunch of LGBT people telling their experiences. One girl cried talking about her extra parent 😅. It was a drama. I think the local southern Baptist association later fired the female pastor or disafiliated the church for performing a same sex marriage then the government changed the laws so that you can get married in AL by signing a form and getting it notarized without an officiant. I later found out that a guy I knew from one of the local pubs was the first to get a same sex marriage in Alabama. He and his spouse own on duplex on the way to the beer store from my buddy's house that we used to walk by, and he told me one day when were going to get more beer when we stopped to say hi. His name was Jim, but people nicknamed him Jimberly. 😊
I think the breakdown in data is fascinating. The younger are more biblical among baptists.
But what was more interesting by far was the gender breakdown. Females look to me more progressive/affirming.
The question is for the CofE has anyone done a breakdown of views by gender. My great suspicion is that females are more affirming. In a world where we have female clergy, could this be what is driving the liberal agenda?
After all it was not that long ago that the progressive pressure was for female clergy and for female bishops. If it is the case that women are more likely to abandon the orthodox view and be progressive, what does that say?
@@davidsprouse151 I don't understand your point here. Are you advocating a resurgence of the patriarchy on biblical rather than overbearing grounds of course, or are you saying that the patriarch had been so weak that they have needed the extra manpower (share the road)? or are you advocating a sort of50% representative egalitarianism? which does not answer the question raised.
@@mikecrees9715 I'm saying that the days of straight eurocentric,male sadomasochists are over. Jesus wasn't a sado masochist, so why are they? Others think and feel differently from you. Accept differences and move on. The church and society will with or without you.
@@davidsprouse151 I dont know any sado masochists, though its hard to not be euro-centric if you are from Europe. I dont see why being male is portrayed as being negative - some serious double think going in there.
What is interesting here is regarding the euro-centrality of thinking, the social liberalism of the west is almost universally rejected in the non-European origin church. I'm in the CofE, and 70% of Anglican communion, and certainly almost all Anglicans in the global south, follow the faith in a far more orthodox and straightforward manner - those I know firmly believe that it is anew form of social colonialism that is attempting to force them to adhere to things they think are wicked. It usually has financial strings attached too, which is pretty ugly. Its a form of euro-centric racism that prevents them from following their faith based in the idea that they are too stupid to think for them selves.
@mikecrees9715 accept differences and move on😊your observations are solipsistic. Others view the world differently from you.
@@davidsprouse151 one can easily accept difference where its on something pretty unimportant, but you see it has to kick both ways. on these topics what actually happens is a sort of enforced conformity to a new way of thinking, and over time where differences have been tolerated and accepted they then have to be endorsed and affirmed, or one is accused of not accepting or affirming the person with the view you disagree with. Not doing so becomes unacceptable, and actually the difference is not accepted at all by the very people that were accepted.
I'm a mathematician and statistician, and what you call solipsism is actually a clear trend in the data.
What is certainly the case, is that the intention is clearly that people who spot what has occurred are usually encouraged to "move on" and are refused the honour of having their differences accepted. such hypocrisy.