Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

This past weekend, the Baptist Association of NSW/ACT took the painful, necessary and timely decision to remove from affiliation both Avalon Peace Baptist Church and Seaforth Baptist Church  – churches on the Northern Beaches of Sydney – because of their commitment to revisionist views and practices around sexuality. A schism IRL in our own backyard.

Why painful? Because long-term relationships that break down always result in pain for either party. There will be people who know good people on both sides, and who are long-term friends. People can love each other and still disagree. We should take no glee from the pain.

Why necessary? Because I believe that the view that these two churches hold is unbiblical and therefore dangerous to the souls of the people of God, and fatal to the church’s mission. No glee from the necessity, just a sobriety that God judges His church for unrepentant sin and false teaching.

Why timely? Well, read to the end for that one.

Sexular Churches

While that all sounds harsh to the modern ear (and we moderns so hate schisms, don’t we?), the decision is a result of the Association holding the line in terms of what Scripture teaches. Yet, interestingly, in a statement following the decision, the disaffiliated ones have reframed this narrative somewhat, claiming that it is the Association’s decision that is the unbiblical one.

Now, at least one of the two churches has not been shy historically in declaring that their revisionist position aligns with the Bible. How do I know that? Well, I have a little history – albeit from a long-distance writing perspective – with Seaforth Baptist’s view on these matters.

Two years ago, I wrote a blog post about Seaforth’s position, lifting it not from a page buried in their website, but from its front page. Seaforth did not believe that this issue was a minor quibble point because they placed their view on same-sex marriage front and centre of their website, presumably as a point of differentiation for anyone seeking a church.

It would be fair to say that I got more heat about that blog post, more scorching comments and more than a few private take-downs from those high up in church leadership for what I said, than I have for any other blog post I have ever written.

If you care to, you can read that piece here. It’s not subtle. It’s entitled Make Sure You Don’t Join a Sexular Church.  Why did I call it that? Because I really want to make sure you don’t join a Sexular church!

So, in light of the heat that is surely coming their way, I commend the brave work of those who brought to a head this painful decision. Let’s not allow one side of the debate to claim all the pain. I am sure it was not an easy decision to reach. The lead-up would have been fraught for both sides. I am sure there were tears and sleepless nights for both sides.

Yet the Association has done the right thing by pushing both of these churches on this matter, and having done so over a period of time. This was not a knee-jerk moment. If I were writing about it two years ago, and it was a live topic then, then it has been on the boil for some time. It had to come to a head.

Yet as I said, both churches believe that the unbiblical stance – as well as the unpastoral stance – is that of the Association. Which makes the schism almost inevitable. Hence this from Avalon’s Pastor, Sally Longley:

“We acknowledge the NSW/ACT Baptist Association decision with deep sadness. We respect the position of the Association regarding marriage equality, even though we think it is un-Biblical and unwelcoming and fail to understand the Association’s refusal to have a mutual respect that enables continued fellowship with us.

Avalon Baptist embraces people with different views, including different views on marriage and marriage equality. In this time of polarisation, furious religion, and social disgust where people feel justified in spitting out those they disagree with, we would have hoped that the Baptist Association had the Biblical depth and maturity to show a different way: that of maintaining fellowship and conversation with those with whom they differ.”

While these may be heartfelt words, I would question what Sally Longley’s vision of unity looks like. The Association believes that Avalon and Seaforth’s view is unbiblical. Avalon and Seaforth believe that the Association’s view is unbiblical. How is unity possible if both sides claim to hold the Bible in such high regard? Unity and truth are tied together. Schism comes from this tension.

That, incidentally, is a question I would ask of Baptist academic, missiologist and blogger, Michael Frost, who, when this issue arose three years ago, accused the Association of risking the mission of the church. His blog post title was pointed: Breaking Up the Family in the Pursuit of Uniformity.

That is disingenuous. Did Michael really believe then – and does he still believe – that the Association’s stance was purely about enforcing uniformity? Has he never in his ministry history held a conviction that sexual ethics are significant biblical and theological matters?  I assume he has. I have read enough of his books to think that he may have done so.

Incidentally, if you are a New South Wales Baptist reading this and you affirm the Association’s stance, then be prepared for similar responses in the coming weeks. They will come. But stand firm in the belief that such responses are either honourably misguided or horribly malicious. And remember, they will almost certainly come from pain. So be careful in your response.

Yet that does not mean we should say nothing about error. Michael Frost said this in 2022:

Uniformity on marriage is required while uniformity on certain outworkings of theology, missiology, pneumatology, and ecclesiology are not. Maybe those insisting on such uniformity are just the same as those advocates of previous controversies. You can get caught up in a particular cultural moment and demand everyone join you in your view. You can forget the strength and importance of cooperation among churches even when they disagree on non-core issues, especially among smaller denominations.

There are a few problems here. First, Michael conflates what are adiophora (non-core) matters with one matter that is clearly core! How do we know this? Because even those who held different perspectives on “theology, missiology, pneumatology, and ecclesiology” down the centuries, showed incredible unity around the Bible’s teaching around marriage and sexual practice. There was no other viewpoint acceptable to the church. Ever. It’s a false equivalence.

The question also has to be asked. Why now? In other words, who is the one getting caught up in a particular cultural moment here? Is it the Association? No. I believe it is the affirming churches.

Check the last sixty years since the Sexual Revolution. Progressive and liberal churches never led the Sexual Revolution. They invariably always followed it. Revisionist churches have always gone, “Hey, us too!” once the Sexual Revolution had set the course and beckoned us to follow upon pain of being considered out of step with the times, or worse – and more contemporaneously – bigoted and dangerous to the health of young people in the modern world.

So let’s not assume motive – at least not sensed motive. Some of this was done for altruistic and “gospel” reasons. But when the constant problem is that the cultural tail is wagging the ecclesiastical dog, then perhaps it’s time to stop and ask who might be caught up in the cultural moment here.

The early church put a stake in the ground around sexual practices and, by sheer force of moral and ethical gravity, shifted the culture over centuries.  Ironically, the early church challenged the very pagan sexual practices that affirming churches are aligning with, now that the culture has repaganised.

With all that said, let’s take a moment to contemplate the practicalities, principles, pragmatics and pastoral implications of all of this.

Practicalities

Now, on a merely practical level, a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Both sides of this debate cannot claim that they hold the truth on the matter and that the other does not, yet somehow for the sake of the mission, they should “Come on, come on, let’s stick together!” Avalon’s perspective is that the Association is “unbiblical”. The Association perspective is that Avalon’s and Seaforth’s is unbiblical.

Sally Longley goes on to say that she had hoped that the Association had the “Biblical depth and maturity” to keep the unity. I am sure she believes that. I don’t doubt her sincerity.

But contrary to her belief, I believe – and I am sure the Association believes – that it is the one showing “Biblical depth and maturity” by making this painful, but necessary decision to break what is – in the end – not true unity at all. This disaffiliation merely signed off on the divorce papers of an already broken marriage.

And given their clear commitment to biblical authority, both Avalon and Seaforth should make the break themselves. Why tie an unbiblical anchor around your neck that would hinder the mission of the church in ways that matter far more than external unity?

The result will be, I presume, that both churches will unite with the newly formed Open Baptists network. The Avalon Peace Baptist Church statement declares:

Avalon Baptist embraces people with different views, including different views on marriage and marriage equality.

With all due respect, that is not the practical issue. As a pastor, I was also welcoming to people with different views on marriage and marriage equality. But at no point was I ever prepared to say to people, “You believe what you will about this, and I’ll believe what I will, and it will be fine. After all, that’s the biblical way.”

No. That’s not the biblical way. That’s a recipe for disaster. My role, among others, was to preach the whole counsel of God, protect the people from error and heresy, and when sexual/anthropological issues came up – and they did because the Bible is about God and humans -, address them biblically (which means pastorally).

I never once thought, “Well perhaps I should give that person a crack at preaching -or holding a teaching role in the church – so that we get their viewpoint on it as well, because unity is the primary goal here. After all we embrace people with different views on marriage and marriage equality.”  

Not once. Now I’m perfectly comfortable embracing people with different views. Perfectly comfortable with that. Most of my extended family are not Christian. They hold different views to me on just about every aspect of sexual ethics.

But I am completely opposed to giving those views any oxygen in a church in terms of what the Bible teaches. And if someone did it in any church I was pastoring, I would compel them to cease, and warn them against going around spreading such views among the congregation upon pain of public censure.

Which brings us to…

Principles

You can hardly claim to be sitting under the authority of Scripture – which Avalon’s statement implies – yet blithely ignore that others within your organisation hold diametrically opposing views, yet still shrug and say “Yeah, but it should be no biggie, we can stick together.”  That would be an unprincipled decision.

Real unity in any organisation, never mind a church association that views the Scriptures as authoritative, must agree around core principles. And make no mistake, despite what the statement from Avalon implies, this is a core principle.

It’s fashionable of late for revisionists to relegate sexuality to a side-bar issue in the Bible. But it’s not a sidebar issue. And it never was. The early church set this agenda clearly, and pagans who converted were commanded by the apostles and the early church to align their view of sex and marriage with God’s revealed Word. This has been the pattern throughout church history.

In fact, the most honest biblical scholars on this matter are those with the least skin in the game. So the likes of Dr William Loader, from Murdoch School of Divinity, who does not hold the Bible to be God’s authoritative word, and who affirms same sex relationships as honouring of God, insists the Bible is clear in its disapproval of any sexual relationship outside of marriage. Clear, but wrong.

The Bible is clear implicitly. Read the results of sub-optimal sexual relationships in the Bible (such as multiple wives and concubines). It never celebrates any sexual union outside of one man and one woman. The Bible is explicitly clear in its commands around sexual practices, in both the Old and New Testaments. The Association believes that to be the case. The revisionists do not, or they seek to explain away the clarity.

As an aside, by taking a principled stand, the Association surely knows it is going to be taking a bath in the public square. Once the likes of The Sydney Morning Herald get onto a story such as this,  there will be glowing articles about those churches now disaffiliated, and disapproving comments about the “bigots et al” in the fundamentalist rump who are on the wrong side of history.

I simply presume that those recently disaffiliated will choose the path of dignified silence because they still love their brothers and sisters. Nothing seems to indicate otherwise. We don’t want to see the internal error from within compounded by external terror from without.

But if you think the Association’s disapproval feels uncomfortable, then I am sure the opprobrium of New South Wales’ secular commentariat will be far harsher than anything two dissenting groups within a denomination can drum up.

So, as a heads-up to anyone from the Association involved in this decision, the approval worth waiting for is the one from Jesus on the last day.  His “well done” will make the inevitable scorching received from the likes of The Sydney Morning Herald seem like a mosquito bite. In fact, it won’t. It will make them feel like glory, for as the apostle Peter says, “If you suffer, you are blessed.”Keep going!

Pragmatics

And of course, there is the pragmatic issue. I believe that the Association not only has the Word of God on its side on this one, the evidence is clear that any church or denomination that aligns with the Sexular Age – the spirit of the age – falls into ruinous decline over time.

If the likes of Michael Frost and Sally Longley can point to any denomination or network that over time has done anything but slowly die when it signs up to the Sexular Age, then write me a list. If they can point to a movement or network that grows, then write me a list. Having said that, there is now an Open Baptists movement in NSW, so this experiment will play out in real time.

If Avalon believes that the Association is being unbiblical, then God will judge the Association for being divisive over a matter that is not adiaphora (a central issue). Seaforth and Avalon are better off in the long run distancing themselves from churches that will prove to be an anchor around their efforts to share the Gospel.

Pastoral

But here’s the kicker on that final point. So what? So what if the Association declines and the Open Baptists grow? The issue is not about popularity, but about the pastoral responsibility that under-shepherds have for the flock of God under their care.  We are reminded in 1 Peter that one day “the Chief Shepherd will appear”.  That will be a joyous and sobering day all at once.

If the Association truly believes that those who practice or celebrate same-sex relationships, are practising and celebrating the unfruitful works of darkness, then this is a deeply pastoral issue now and into eternity.

I get it. Pastoring someone biblically who is same-sex attracted sounds like an emotional and relational life sentence (or even more sombrely,  a death sentence). It does not sound pastoral. But it is. I am sure no one in the Association takes glee from telling people these truths. But then again, no physician ever takes glee from telling a patient that they require radical surgery for cancer.

Clearly, the Association is convinced that it is making a difficult choice to be pastoral to people in the long term, even if this is not understood by people  – or by the wider culture –  in the short term. And it is prepared to suffer the consequences of broken earthly relationships for the sake of that.

For Avalon to call the decision “unbiblical” without at least acknowledging that the decision was made by their opponents in good faith for what they believed to be mature pastoral reasons, not simply because it reveals a lack of maturity, an unwelcoming spirit, and the absence of love, then the schism was already there. The vote simply confirms it.

So there will be hurt. Clearly. There was plenty of hurt two years back when I wrote about it. I saw the end result of that hurt in many comments. Will those comments come again from people who are hurt? Undoubtedly. Does this level of hurt mean that this decision should not have been taken by the Association? Not for a moment. It was necessary. And not all of the hurt is in one direction.

Practicalities, Principles, Pragmatics and Pastoral. A very non-Baptistic four-point sermon.

But finally (and unlike many a Baptist pastor, I mean it), for what it’s worth, it was a timely decision by the Association. Left any longer, and other matters would have come to the fore that show even deeper differences and resulted in deeper wrangles. Don’t believe me? Just watch the train wreck in Australia among many Uniting Churches.

For deeper differences there surely are among the Baptists. And only time will reveal their true extent.  The sexuality question is but the tip of a bigger iceberg. 90 per cent of the differences are under the waterline. Churches will use the same language as each other, but mean completely different things by it. Even the word “unbiblical”.

The battle in the modern world is the battle around language and meaning. What do we mean by the term…[FILL IN THE BLANK]? The sin of a thing is always “Did God really say?” Don’t believe me? Then ask a liberal Uniting Church minister what the word “resurrection” means. I guarantee it will be a different answer to what the Bicton Uniting Church in Fremantle believes it to be.

Check out any other denomination that has gone down the Sexular Age line. In the end, their stand on sexuality reveals bigger matters around orthodoxy and, yes, biblical authority. It just does. Will that happen to the Open Baptists? Will they, in twenty years time, be as close to the Association’s views on many major theological matters as the continuing Presbyterians’ views are today to the Uniting Church’s? If history is any indication, there will be a chasm between them.

This schism is painful, necessary and timely.

___

Republished with thanks to Stephen McAlphine. Image courtesy of Adobe.