See a video summary from August 2025 here
Calling the BU Trustees to uphold the Declaration of Principle – by SJ Roe
This article follows on from my article ‘The Authority of Christ, the Holy Scriptures and the Baptist Union Today’ published on EB website in November 2024, and I recommend readers (re)read that one before continuing with this.
The Baptist Union of Great Britain has the Declaration of Principle (DP) as its centre, spiritually and legally (in its UK charity Constitution). All accredited ministers and churches must agree to it, and sign up, to belong to the BUGB. The DP’s opening and foundational statement is: ‘that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures‘. This is the foundation of the whole document: the second part of point 1 (about local church congregational government, including interpretation of the Bible), and points 2 and 3. According to BUGB, the DP is
… rooted in Jesus’ Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) with its threefold pattern of authority, baptism and mission. The first clause of the Declaration focuses on the absolute authority of Jesus Christ, with clause two on baptism into the life of God. Clause three is all about mission. (Baptists Together website, page on DP).
Belonging to the BUGB thus creates a call to being disciples of Jesus. Unlike other statements of faith (e.g. the Baptist World Alliance and European Baptist Federation, and the Evangelical Alliance), the DP does not have a separate general clause about the Bible, but focusses on the authority of Jesus, as revealed in the Bible. Thus, the DP is very Christocentric, and emphasises the call to every Christian to join in the ‘Great Commission’ of Matthew 28 as disciples of the Lord Jesus.
The heart of the DP has come under scrutiny with the recent challenge to the Ministerial Recognition (MR) rules—i.e. that Christian marriage should be redefined to include homosexual marriage. After a major consultation of the BU membership of churches and ministers, the BU Council decided in 2024 that the MR rules should not be changed. This has thrown up an anomaly in the membership, because a minority of BU churches and ministers believe that Christian marriage should be redefined as above.
The essence of the minority position is that:
- because the Bible does not mention homosexual orientation, or covenanted same-sex relationships (as opposed the condemnation of homosexual practice in OT and NT, which is interpreted as abusive and coercive), and
- because God is loving and inclusive especially for those who are or have been marginalised, excluded and treated with prejudice or persecution, and
- because God wants all people to be able to find fulfilment in committed loving relationships
—therefore, the church today should redefine Christian marriage to include homosexual marriage.
A minority of Baptist churches reject the BU Council recommendation of 2016 that the traditional heterosexual definition of marriage be exclusively upheld. They have conducted homosexual weddings, and welcome homosexually-married people into all areas of church life.
The key question now, in 2025, is: how do this minority justify their view and sincerely uphold the DP? There are several insurmountable inconsistencies with this position, and the BUGB Trustees are tolerating or turning a blind eye to this. In doing so, they are dishonouring several things:
- The Baptist movement, which has the DP as the basis of its unity (emphasised by the Council in March 2024). The BUGB Trustee Board Governance Handbook states that
The BUGB Trustee Board is set apart to ensure that we remain true to our charitable objects, our churches and our governance responsibilities … The role of each trustee, working as part of the Trustee Board, is to: ensure the Core Leadership Team (CLT) fulfils the strategic direction for the Union set by Council; ensure the Council and the CLT together remain accountable to the churches and true to governing documents and other agreements… ‘ (pp.5, 54)
- The Bible and the Christocentric hermeneutic historically adopted by Baptists; and
- Ultimately, our Lord Jesus Christ, who governs all matters of Christian faith and practice.
The Trustee board is failing to fulfil their key spiritual and legal function as guardians of the Trust deeds of the BU on behalf of the member churches, because they refuse to consider, or are turning a blind eye to, the anomalies of allowing ministers and churches to remain within the BU who clearly do not accept the teaching and example of the Lord Jesus as revealed in the Bible regarding the definition of Christian marriage, and therefore de facto cannot accept and uphold the DP, but remain signed up to it. The Trustees are allowing a smoke screen over fundamental issues and differences within BU churches surrounding the nature, authority and interpretation of the Bible. This does nobody any favours, whatever their views: ‘if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? ‘ (1 Cor 14:8, NIV).
The DP requires that members of BUGB wholeheartedly affirm that our Lord Jesus ‘is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures‘. This means that we look to Jesus’ life and teaching as Rabboni (‘my teacher‘ Mark 10:51, John 20:16) at two levels:
- in his actual teaching, and the example of his life and actions recorded in the gospels, and
- in the whole impact of the ‘Christ-event’—the whole package of the birth, life, ministry, killing, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus the Son of God, as interpreted and explained by Jesus himself, the apostles and the NT writers.
We look to these two sources of Jesus’ authority to determine not only how to become Christians, be disciples of Jesus, and be his church in God’s world, but also as the key hermeneutic principle of how we understand the whole Bible. Baptists do not have a monolithic approach to the Bible, but see it as a collection of documents which must be interpreted through the hermeneutic lens of Jesus — certainly the OT, but also the NT documents which tell us about him. In fact, although the DP is a much briefer document than the other statements of faith mentioned above, it calls those signed up to it to a much deeper engagement with God through his Son and the Bible than others do. Bartimaeus and Mary Magdalene called Jesus Rabboni. Through signing the DP, Baptists join these two early disciples in their joyful love for and allegiance to Jesus. They join the circle of disciples sitting in a circle around him who have become his ‘brother and sister and mother ‘ (Mark 3:34-35). Jesus is our Rabboni, and we long to follow his teaching in every way. At the ontological ‘Christ-event’ level, Jesus is the Son of God and eternal Word of God (John 1:1-18) — the source of all light for all people, who brings grace and truth to us from the Father and who makes the Father known. In him all the fulness of God dwells (Col 1:19, 2:2-3, 9). The DP summarises this by saying he is ‘God manifest in the flesh‘. This call to faith and discipleship gives us a double assurance of Jesus’ authority and reliability as Lord:
- because he is the Messiah, the divine teacher who teaches people about the kingdom of God, God his father as their heavenly father, and uniquely reveals the Father to the world (Matt 11:27); and
- because as the Word of God from before creation, he is the guiding eternal divine principle of how to interpret the OT, and his own mission, identity and status. Matthew records Jesus as saying ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.‘ (Matt 5:17). All the OT is fulfilled in him, and all the NT shines out from him—and the DP calls Baptists to look to Jesus as the key interpreter of all the teachings of the Bible.
The teachings of Jesus in word and action, as recorded in the gospels and Acts, and the explication in the other NT writings of his identity and eternal ultimate authority give us the source of Christ’s ‘sole and absolute authority‘ for Baptists. His actual teaching by word of mouth, actions and life recorded by the apostles and evangelists, and the whole Christ-event, are the ‘binoculars’ through which the DP defines how Baptists read and interpret the Bible.
Thus, when it comes to the definition of Christian marriage, to make the case that the BUGB can now redefine that to include homosexual marriage, Baptists would need to say that Jesus teaches that this is the will of God. But to do this flies in the face of reason and the plain meaning of words. In all his teaching and in the example of his life, Jesus, as revealed in the gospels, completely upheld the OT teaching and Jewish tradition that God’s ideal and command for marriage is that it is exclusively heterosexual. When defining God’s ideal for marriage, he quotes Genesis 2 (as does Paul his apostle).
Jesus radically and permanently changed many things about Jewish tradition and the OT teaching (his teaching was ‘good news‘) but he never gave any indication that God’s ideal for marriage should be redefined. What did Jesus teach, and what does the whole Bible teach about marriage?—that it is exclusively heterosexual.
God wants to protect the marginalised, neglected and persecuted, but this does not justify realigning the practice of Baptist churches with the UK parliament’s decisions to celebrate homosexual marriage. God has not mandated us to redefine the covenant of Christian marriage.
Now, of course, the general principle of God’s grace embodied by Jesus does redefine certain teachings (e.g. Gal 3:26-29, ‘you are all one in Christ Jesus‘). But, let alone what the Bible says, it does not make sense of the plain meaning of words to argue that Jesus’ teaching could be redefined to include homosexual marriage. His words and example, as revealed in the gospels, was actually the opposite.
In Christian denominations which have a different statement of faith or doctrinal basis, it may well be reasoned acceptable to alter their constitution. Some churches/denominations in UK have done so. But Baptists have enshrined and encapsulated their core beliefs in a statement of double strength — that we look to the Bible for governing ‘all matters pertaining to faith and practice‘, and that the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole and absolute authority for how we interpret the Bible’s teaching about those matters. It is not just the Bible which is our source of authority, but Jesus himself as revealed in it. This is the core and foundation of Baptist identity, spiritually and legally, and it is the solemn principal duty of the BU Trustees to safeguard this, on behalf of its member churches, above all other responsibilities. They are now failing the members, because while purporting to uphold the DP and requiring all members to do so, they are clearly allowing some members to de facto reject it (although the latter cling to a convoluted justification for defining the teaching of Jesus as the opposite to his words and actions described and recorded in the gospels).
If a BU member church started baptising infants, they would be breaking the commitment of DP point 2, and they could not claim justification for their position under the second part of point 1 that they had liberty to interpret the laws of Christ in their own way. The Trustees would engage with that church and listen to its case, but if it persisted in holding its interpretation, it would be asked to resign from the Union since it now contradicted an essential element of commitment and belonging to the Union. It is the duty of the Trustees, following the Council decision in 2024 to uphold the BU’s position on marriage in the statement of 2016, and Council’s emphasis in 2024 on reaffirming the DP as the basis of our Union, to engage with any member church who are contradicting the authority of Christ over the issue of marriage, and challenge them to be consistent to their beliefs, and either to change their position, or leave the Union.
An alternative to this is that BUGB changes the DP to reduce the authority of Christ, or explicitly state that the issue of Christian marriage falls outside of the scope of Christ’s authority. Other denominations have foundational statements which allow such flexibility: e.g. the Methodist Church, whose core statement is as follows:
Strategic Objectives, Aims and Purposes of The Methodist Church in Great Britain
The activities covered in these financial statements fall within the work of The Methodist Church in Great Britain (‘The Methodist Church’ or ‘The Church’). The aim of The Methodist Church in Great Britain is expressed in its ‘Our Calling ‘ statement:
‘The calling of the Methodist Church is to respond to the gospel of
God’s love in Christ and to live out its discipleship in worship and mission. ‘
(from The Methodist Church in Great Britain Consolidated Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 August 2024, p.3)
The Methodist Church’s one-sentence constitutional foundation allows a wide range of views to come together. It does not mention the Bible or the authority of Christ. In fact, its explicit meaning is that authority in the Church is located in the human response to the gospel — it does not attempt to define what the gospel is, or the authority of Christ, or the Bible. The human response is the arbiter of what defines Christian life, Biblical interpretation and church governance. This is not to criticise another denomination but to analyse, and to make the point by comparison that the BUGB DP does not give liberty for this approach.
In conclusion, the BU Trustees are failing us all by allowing this fudge and smoke-screen over the specific issue of same-sex marriage, and the more general and significant one of the authority of Christ as revealed in the Bible. Surely churches in the BU who have a more liberal interpretation are confident and proud of their views and position, as are evangelical churches — so the Trustees should commission the Council to explore these matters, and agree to one of the following:
- Churches should examine whether they still sincerely uphold the DP, and if not, be asked to leave the BU;
- Council should propose a change to the DP which allows churches to hold different views on the authority of Christ as revealed in the Bible; or
- Council should propose the BU divides amicably and fairly into two Unions with different doctrinal foundations.
The Evangelical Baptists group should press the Trustees to act as above, and if this is refused, EB churches should use the constitutional means of calling a General Meeting of BUGB to ensure progress as above.
