who's in? who's out? who decides?

The decision of the Church of England Synod to deny women the opportunity to be elected as bishops will be much debated in the days to come.  The debate will not be about theological convictions or biblical interpretation but about how badly the church can get things wrong. 

Its easy to dismiss those who voted to deny women the opportunity to become bishops as misogynists, or narrow-minded bigots, or worse.  I, for one, do not want to hang such labels around the necks of those who voted against the legislation, though I am remote from the raw emotions felt by women especially and I can understand their hurt and anguish, even if I cannot experience it.

But once the immediate reactions have subsided there needs to be a very serious conversation indeed, and it needs to go wider than Anglicanism. If we, as Baptists, want to be part of that debate let us at least be aware of the potential inconsistency in advocating in favour of justice for one group whilst cherishing our own reasons for excluding others. Jesus addressed this directly - “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Luke 6:41 TNIV)

Gay men and women feel excluded from most of the Christian church, including I suggest, most Baptist churches, on the grounds of their orientation.  Many of our churches have rules that exclude people from Our Communion Table.  Sorry, a slip there – The Lord’s Table.  We exclude people from church membership on the basis of our convictions about believer’s baptism.  We then exclude people from baptism because they’re cohabiting. And we exclude people from getting married in the church because one is a committed Christian and their partner isn't. 

So, if we’re going to have a conversation about injustice, just realise we will also be in the spotlight ourselves, and it wont necessarily be a comfortable experience.

I’m not saying that there are no underlying moral, ethical or theological convictions and truths, underpinning these issues – there are.  All I’m saying is that those who voted against women bishops are probably not women haters, but for whatever reason they are part of a long ecclesiastical tradition of exclusion.

We’re a part of that. I’m a part of that.  Jesus wasn’t.

So let me take a few risks here because frankly the stakes are too high not to do so.

It seems to me most gay people do not choose to be gay, that is simply how they’re wired.  I don’t pretend to understand it, but maybe one day we will.  Maybe its the same as my heterosexuality – its just the way I’m wired – or maybe its something genetic.   I know too that the issue is more complicated than blind prejudice – heterosexuality is described in scripture as part of God’s creation design in a way that homosexuality is not.  But I know how much human sexuality, gay or straight, is fallen so I am loathe to make any sweeping assertions that permanently exclude men and women whose orientation is different. 

I know too that the Bible doesn’t at first glance help us with some key verses that refer to homosexuality and I am not at liberty to set aside those verses indiscriminately.  But I do know that we routinely explain away large parts of scripture to do with food laws, what animal skins we can wear, what can and cant be done during a women’s period, head-coverings and strongly worded advice about stoning people to death. Get it?

Even that doesn’t settle the issue. I know that too!  But I ask myself what Jesus would do, and I have a fair idea that he’d challenge exclusion and welcome people to him. It wouldn’t be an unqualified welcome – none of us, gay or straight, rich or poor, black or white are beyond reproach in his presence – but I know we’d be welcomed.

Don’t stone me yet - I haven’t finished.  Most Baptist churches have an open table these days though a minority don’t. My concern is that sometimes I hear the words at the communion table spoken as if we had to protect the bread and wine from contamination by people who are not quite ready to eat and drink. Read a little more here.

Ah yes, and then there’s cohabitation.  Now you’re getting really angry because it seems like I’m saying ‘anything goes’. Not really.  All I’m saying is, how did the hymn-writer put it, “Jesus take me as I am, I can come no other way”.  For millions of young never-churched people, how will they choose to live for Jesus unless they know Jesus and how will they know Jesus unless they’re welcome in our churches?  I know the presence or absence of a welcome isn't the main deal – most people just don’t give a fig about Jesus and his church, but it would at least be a start if churches were known as welcoming places for such couples.

The point is this. All of these convictions have biblical roots, and on the whole people who hold the convictions that have the effect of locking others out are not bigots. So name-calling isn’t helpful.

What may be helpful is to see that however right we think we are, its possible, dare I say likely, that we’ve lost sight of the main thing.  We’ve hidden Jesus out of sight, protected him, defended him, safeguarded the purity of the gospel, kept ‘the world’ at a distance so we don’t get dirty, as if the world isn't the place where we eat and drink and dance and watch good movies and read great books and live and love and laugh and cry.  This is life, and it’s a gift from God, but it’s simultaneously beautiful and broken. Who gave us the right to be the gatekeepers to the one who alone offers healing and hope?

If Baptists want to say something to our Anglican brothers and sisters, then we need to show the same willingness to examine the areas of life where its our convictions, not theirs, that are in the spotlight.

That won’t be easy because it will require me / us to relocate our convictions into second place in order that an even higher conviction takes first place, namely the conviction that Jesus came to destroy barriers and we need to do the same.

David Kerrigan

Comments

[Catriona]

Thanks David, wise words, graciously spoken

[Simon]

Thank you David. So very easy to criticise others and not think about things closer to home.

[Jane]

Echoing what Catriona and Simon said...thank you, David. A very thoughtful and compassionate post which I am so glad I took the time to read. We've been looking at the 'Baptist Basics' series at my church during the Autumn and we end with 'Lifestyle' this Sunday. Your comments will be very helpful as I continue to prepare.

[serena]

An excellent post, thank you. As a former Baptist recently turned Anglican I feel rather delicately balanced at the moment and appreciate your words of wisdom.

[Jenny Few]

Bravo and amen David!

[anon]

can I ask why, in your opinion, at a national gathering of Baptists, people were made to feel excluded from the Lord's Supper if they were not in good standing with their local church? If Jesus is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, is this something Jesus would say? Are we all perfect when we come to the table? I understand totally that we should forgive our brother and avoid judgment, but what does "good standing" mean? If my minister is cold towards me for a reason I don't know, does this mean I am not in good standing?

Is there a theological reason for "the good standing" comment?

I ask it here because I don't know where I else can ask this.

[David K]

Hi Anon (sorry I cant use your name - but Anon is OK), I'm trying to be sure I understand the question. I assume you're saying that at the last London Assembly, the invitation to come to the table included some reference to 'those who were in good standing with their local church'. That'll be my assumption for now - tell me if I'm wrong.

I think if it was me I wouldn't use those words because it sets a conditionality that can make people feel excluded. In Patterns and Prayers for Christian Worship (OUP BUGB 1991) there is a beautiful prayer of invitation which reads in part "We invite all who are seeking him and all who are weary of their sin and doubt to come and share in the feast. If you do not feel able to take a full part you are welcome to remain amongst us without receiving bread and wine"

When I first read that it spoke so much to my heart - it isn't a table just for the family of faith, its a table for the outsider who isn't even sure they want to be in the family, or don't believe they're good enough to be in the family. Of course, they're not good enough - none of us are (with or without faith). I long for the communion table to be a moment of holy grace in the life of the community as it was in Soham some years ago (follow my link in the paragraph six from the end above). Extending the table literally allows more people to sit down and eat.

Extending the table demonstrates heavenly hospitality.

[David Kerrigan]

Me again! Anon, I forgot to touch on your last point. Sadly there are times when church discipline is appropriate. I have not been in such a situation in any church where I have been pastor, but I do know that at times churches has asked such a person not to take communion as a sign of penitence. After all, the Eucharist is a privilege we sometimes take too lightly.

Whether I would use those words at an Assembly, I'm not sure. The danger is that such words might exclude people I might otherwise like to know 'you can come'. I don't think this would have been intended at the last Assembly if those words were used.

[Simon]

I am thinking of the story of the pharisee and the tax collector. Jesus exalts the tax collector because of his repentance. It doesn't matter who he is or what he's done, but it clearly matters what his attitude to God and to his life is.

The pharisee seems to believe he has a right to God's forgiveness, and I would be concerned with any approach that encourages anyone to think that forgiveness is a consumer product, whether they be dyed-in-the-wool churchgoer or first-time attender. Paul's angry sermon on communion in 1Corinthians 11 is of course directed at Christians, but I think it covers a non- or near-believer too. Alan Kreider has obviously done a lot of work on the early church and how closed the table was - I'm challenged and confused by that because the practice in my own church is completely open - we have meals together and anyone is welcome...

[David Kerrigan]

Simon, can you expand on "Alan Kreider has obviously done a lot of work on the early church and how closed the table was" - I'm not familiar with his work on this area... or anyone else?

[Paul Lavender]

Thank you David - more theological leadership of this sort is needed in our Baptist family...

[Simon Woodman]

Thank you David - well said.