Politurgy

Baptist way of being the church and Scottish Independence

First of all to set the context let me repeat from an earlier post a preamble...

Free Church (ana) baptist Preamble

(with a nod to John Howard Yoder and Body Politics)

The Christian Church is part of society and nation in so far as it is located within that wider concept we call nation and state. Its distinct nature brings a particular 'social expression' into that society. Distinct, the Christian Church has to constantly discern how it will relate to that wider society not least in those aspects that impinge upon the lives of the congregation. The choices open to include: seeking to transform the structures of that society in keeping with Kingdom of God; seeking to humanise the brokeness of that society through care; withdrawing from engagement with that society as witness.

It can be argued that the nature of such church engagement should flow of its own inner practices in so far as they themselves bear witness to the Kingdom of God. I say in so far as they bear witness to the Kingdom of God because historically the practices of the Church have not historically always been on the side of Jesus as borne witness to in the Scriptures. So for example churches that have practiced hierarchical and oppressive structures can hardly be seen as standing in the tradition and practice of the head of the Church Jesus.

Accepting at least the aspiration of the church in its practices to reflect the way of Jesus, as suggested above, the starting point for church engagement with the wider society can be its own practices. To put that dfifferently, in so far as the church practices in relation to the ordering of its human life represent the Kingdom of God, engagement with society can take the form of asking what these would like if implemented in wider society.

Of course there is a problem in the above suggestion. The 'Church' and the 'World' are not the same thing. One seeks to live consciously under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the other does not. Churches not least in the 'free church' tradition do and should recognise this distinction. This notwithstanding this does not rule out 'engagement' as variously described above for a number of reasons:

• Jesus is Lord over all things not just the Church
• The Kingdom life as is expressed in the practices of the Church is the coming reality
• While the World is not the Church there can be places where the practices of the Church at least in a 'thinner' version can be applicable to wider society.

The last point involves making an important distinction between 'thick' practices which are appropriated in all their fulness through faith and 'thin' practices which are ideas that can be applied beyond the Church although not in their full dimensions. e.g. the church may practice through faith 'forgiveness' and as such encourage in wider society approaches of conflict resolution although without the faith dimension and committment to sustain it. The latter though not the church practice of forgiveness based in faith is moving in the right Kingdom direction.

In the light of the above this for me raises the question of what the Baptist way of being has to say in relation to questions on Scottish independence.

The Baptist way of being the church and Scottish independence

Firstly, the Baptist way of being the church breaks down any ideas of 'nationalism' determining a Christians ultimate loyalty. Our first loyalty is to Jesus Christ. Neither a future Scottish nation nor equally the case the present British nation can be given our primary loyalty. Jesus never said: 'your country wrong or right'. He did say 'Come follow me'.

Secondly, if ultimate loyalty is to Christ, believers baptism points to a new humanity that supercedes other loyalties based upon any other criteria including that of 'nation'. 

'For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.'

Accordingly flowing from our allegiance to Jesus Christ this new humanity which supercedes national borders claims our first allegiance.

The above accordingly argue against ideas of independence based upon 'hard' or 'ethnic nationalism' which in any way would regard or treat others as lesser or enemy.

Thirdly, the above points being held, the Baptist way of being the church yet holds to notions of local governance under Christ. To be sure this local governance does not negate principles of 'interdependence' with and a 'concern for' others to whom are also granted this local governance - such is necessitated by points 1 and 2 above. (NB Scottish Baptists are part of British; European, and World Baptist fellowships and associations) 

Yet, it affirms that this local governance is best way in which people can work out what is best for them in context. (NB we have a distinctive Baptist Union of Scotland). The individual letters in the New Testament while having wider implications and application yet indicate the 'local' nature of church life and practice as each sought in context to bear faithful witness.

In the light of this it can be argued that a (thin) projection from the Baptist way of being the church in the world is a sitiation of local accountable governance which does not yet negate the relationship of that 'state?' to other 'states?' in equality, good will, and mutual support.

This being the case from a Baptist perspective one may well resist notions of hard and ethnic nationalism but yet argue for the value of local governance particularly when and where such in its outcomes offers the potential of more participatory, accountable, and just societies.

For me it is in this realm - where Amazing Grace and Freedom Come All Ye meet (not in the popular 'worldy' playground of Mammon) that Scottish Baptists (Christians?) need to have their particular debates and wrestle through their opinions. 

 

denominations other institutions, loyal radicals and Jesus

The comment is often made that people have no interest in denominations any more. If the comment means that people outside of the church have no interest that is probably true in the same way that they don't have any interest in many of our newer forms of doing things either. If it refers to people inside the church the statement may well or not be true.

I do think it an interesting comment. It is particularly interesting when put by people who themselves in preference to traditional denominations belong to new groupings and networks. For just as a denomination is a gathering around 'a shared something' so are such newer groupings. In turn various sociological perspectives demonstrate (whether they be social movement theory or more performance based ideas around 'communitas' as recently discussed by Frost and Hirsch)that nearly all groupings have to take on some structured form in to maintain their life together.

To be sure in newer groupings or movements the organisational structure may be lighter or more relational rather than the committee structure of older institutions. On the other side unlike these traditional institutions in new grouping where power lies and how it is exercised and by whom may be more hidden and accordingly less open to question and critique. Issues of hierarchy exist in all all groupings old and new.

I mention the above to indicate that I am suspicious of all institutions whether they be new or old. In my suspicion I look at the reasons why such groupings exist - what they gather around...a charismatic leader, a creed or statement of faith, a set of shared values, a task, or the goal of simply being relational and so on. This is important because this indicates what some have referred to as the 'inner voice' of an institution - the thing that can always push it back to being a movement.

In my own grouping because strictly speaking Baptists in Scotland are not a denomination at the centre is not actually relationality (although we want to be intentionally relational) nor a creed (although we want to be creatively rooted) not even mission (although we want to be unashamedly missional) nor even the Declaration of Principle - but rather at the centre is the one to whom all this points and gets its direction and life - the person of Jesus Christ as borne witness to in the Scriptures. It is to his presence, example and guidance we ever look to deconstruct and reconstruct us in his image. It is because he is central and our understanding of what this means for our way of being the church and bearing faithful witness to him that I am a loyal radical to the 'baptist' way of things as it ever seeks to be a movement.

But what do you mean...by mission

We use language to communicate. Part of the grammar of that language are individual words. Often these words are 'key' to the meaning we wish to convey. The meaning of individual words of course is not simply located in the word and the thing that it signifies. Rather the meaning of the word is found in relation to a variety of contexts...the grammatical use, the context of the utterance...and what it means in the mind of the speaker and hearer. If we do not recognise this we may all be speaking and hearing using the same words but meaning completely different things.

Take the word 'mission' for a start. The concept of mission is an important one. It is important because of our biblical and theological convictions and it is important because we in the 'West' find ourselves in a missionary situation whereby our lands are now among the most demanding 'mission fields' in the world rather than being the Christian nations from which missionaries are sent around the world. Newbiggin got this some time ago but it is taking some time to sink in...

One of the issues here, however, is that while we may be talking more about mission and indeed missional and even agreeing on the need for it we may all be using this language in quite different ways.

An experiment I sometimes conduct with classes and conferences is to ask individuals to identify and name what for them is their key 'missionary' Scriptures. As most of the circles I mix in are evangelical Matthew 28:19ff. comes out top a lot...but there are others OT and NT ranging as recently from Wisdom literature to Prophetic literature, to the gospels, Paul and the other Epistles.

If I have time I then ask folks to unpack what these verses, their key verses communicate about mission...the variety is considerable Matthew 28 and Luke 4 have somewhat different notions of mission going on.

My point in this exercise is simply to highlight that as we use the word mission we all may be referring to Scriptures but these Scriptures highlight different and perhaps even competing claims on what mission is. Indeed even when people are using the same Scriptures we may have different translations and interpretations of the them: e.g. Matthew 28:19 ff read as 'Therefore go' creates as different feel and perhaps imperative from the equally valid from 'As you go' translation.

Of course in such a topic as mission the richness of the various Scriptures is not a bad thing but together can inform us - but bringing these ideas together and wrestling through what 'we mean' involves both tiime and probably a somewhat stable community to work out and interpret not simply how we read these Scriptures but what we hears the living Christ say to us. This takes place as there is shift from an individual to a communal understanding of the words in context.

Establishing meaning takes time and a community committed to the discernment process. The time this takes may be frustrating for us missional activists. Yet, I suggest that greater participation will result from greater ownership created in the time given and taken to learning and agreeing. The alternative may be many words about mission, and enthusisim for mission but in practice confusion, misunderstanding, and inaction from the majority.

 

 

 

reading yoder for the substance of discipleship

Anabaptist reading group (Glasgow) restarting on Tuesday 2nd September at Tinderbox Ingram Street at 7.30. If you want to come along and not received an email from me message me and - it can be so.

We will be reading and discussing this book which contains a series of articles by the late John Howard Yoder  and which hopefully makes his thinking more accessible to a variety of readers others than those of an academic bent.

The goal for me will be to move beyond showing our knowledge of Yoder (if we have any) and discussing what he writes to the 'practical' concern of what this 'witness' based on Scripture and centred on Christ means for our own discipleship. If we fail to get there on a night we will have ended up discussing Yoder, the book, and even discipleship but may have failed to allow this witness to 'analysis' and 'discuss' us in the light of what it means to follow Jesus. Oh to be sure there will be the many tangents, moments of nonsense, rants that cannnot be spoken elsewhere than in a safe group, and disagreements but...

In the introduction to the book we are told:

'Where churches have become self-focussed and sheltered, Yoder calls us to be creative and mission-minded. He also challenges us to witness to Christ in every aspect of our lives. Where churches have become judgemental, Yoder calls us to be truly evangelistic, proclaiming the good news of God's offer of abundant life. Where churches have become conversion-focussed, Yoder calls us to be disciple-focussed, being and making followers of the way of Jesus. Where churches have become too political, Yoder calls for a new kind of politics in the body of Christ, embracing forgiveness instead of a finger pointing, conflict resolution instead of a polarized patisanship, and unity in Christ instead of competing interest groups. Finally, where churches have become hypocritical, Yoder calls us to radical Christian discipleship, shunning legalism and self righteousness and relying on the power of the Holy Spirit as we take up the cross and follow Jesus. Yoder's challenge to the church not only addresses surface issues of image, but tackles core issues of substance. He helps us ask again, who is Jesus? And who are we called to be as his followers?'

To be sure these latter issues require to be explored with tough thinking and deep feeling but if they are considered apart from concrete doing - discipleship will once more have been emptied of its substantial content which only exists in embodied lifestyle.

No permission needed to engage in public space...

The following blog post has been highlighted by a variety of people: Nick Baines Blog. This blog is are response to an article in the Independent challeninging the Archbishop of Canterbury's involvement in politics. The responses Baines makes to the article are very good. I would, however, want to add a couple of comments:

First of all I think that the issue of the established nature of the Church of England is an important question in relation to this article and would support the disestablishment of the Church of England just as I don't think the Kirk should have 'national' Church status in Scotland.

Secondly, and following on from the above there is a danger that the responses to the article are based upon the implicit assumption that the Church should have a 'recognised' public voice. Recognised by whom? I think that the Church should have a public voice that speaks out and into the reality of society seeking the transformation of structures and the humanisation of ills. Yet, to do that it does not need to argue its 'right' to do so. Indeed to argue for its right to do so assumes that there exists outside of the Church validating criteria and a legitimazing authority which agrees this 'right'. The Church does not need to have anyone to agree to its having a public voice to have one, it just needs to act and speak publicly deriving its authority from the authority of Christ. Methinks (playful old language)  that those who have been prophets have not always argued for their right to be prophets against those who denied them that they right - they have just got on with it and lived with the consequences for the sake of a greater reward...to paraphrase something from Hebrews 11.

Pay Day Loans and the Poor Among Us

Various churches including the ‘Kirk’ have now expressed their clear opposition to the extortionate rates of interest charged by pay day loan companies. Generally this ‘prophetic’ intervention into wider society has been welcomed not least as it has been accompanied by practical suggested alternatives. the latter is required because pay day loan companies do provide help for those who may have no other options and are better than local loan shark operators.

This prophetic intervention, however, has also resulted in some embarassing soul or at least investment seraching to ensure that churches have not been investing, however indirectly, in the sort of companies who engage in such loan activity. In turn , it has been at least interesting to see some of public discussion in relation to how different religous groups including Christianity have traditionally responded to the issue of giving loans and helping the poor etc. Scripture passages of various types have been quoted in the press including in the Herald article by Andrew McKie Churches play a blinder on the scourge of payday loans (my thanks to Doug Gay's tweet for drawing my attention to this).

All of this has to be welcomed. 

Yet this discussion poses the Church with another question. This is the question of how we respond to Scriptures which are concerned primarily with our internal life as a 'community of believers' and which at least suggest some sort of redistribution of wealth as a characteristic of Holy Spirit inspired community Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35 so that there are no poor among us. To be sure this approach has not been dominant in the mainstream tradition of church - yet it nags away suggesting that the upper limits of some may have to be lowered if others are to be lifted up.

I find this whole thing deeply challenging not least because of my own anabaptist inclinations. Historically as Arnold Snyder argues 'Economic Sharing' was an anabaptist church practice. Radical economic sharing was the the visible sign of ones committment to the community. Sometimes as with the Hutterites this took the form of an organised community of goods. For all, however, it meant caring for the poor, the widows, and the orphans. 

This suggests to me that even as the Church seeks to transform or humanise wider society it has an internal challenge of practicing such care so that members of the Christian community need not resort to either Pay Day loan bodies or Credit Unions but find their immediate help in and from the community of faith.

In this I am not in any way suggesting the old maxim: 'charity begins at home' but rather the idea that 'Judgement begins with the house of God' and that bearing witness requires not simply suggesting a more ethical wider society but also embodying in practice a more ethical community. The salt of the earth also needs to be a light ona  stand, a city on the hill. 

 

 

Is there such a things as Christian community?

In material I read and in conversations I have I hear people express a desire for 'Christian community'. Such a desire is sometimes linked to theological themes e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity (as a communion of Love) or Christian anthropology (where we were created to live in relationship) or to biblical passages such as Acts 2 42ff. and language the notion of 'koinonia' (fellowship).

This desire is often a desire for 'authentic' Christian community over and against their present or past experience of Church and concern to embody more fully a theological and biblical expression.

It is interesting that in such conversations 'Christian community' as desired is frequently not described in the language of 'church' but rather as 'Christian community' as though this is something other than or different from church.

Now to be sure I accept absolutely that not every form or expression of church embodies Christian community. I am actually prepared to say that some particular expressions of  church can be principalities of evil rather than an expression of the body of Christ.

The above said, I am not sure that it is possible to seperate theologically and biblically the notion of Christian comuunity derived from the Scriptures from the idea or the concept of 'church' as the 'christian community' that the Scriptures bear witness to as the body of Christ as the 'koinonia' as the new humanity that Jesus Christ came to create.

As a consequence of this when people write or talk about Christian community I respond by asking - okay but are you meaning by this what the bible calls 'church'.

The reason I ask the question is because if the answer is 'no' I want to know more clearly what they mean by calling it a Christian community because I am not sure that the New Testament anticipates a generic idea of Christian community apart from the notion of Church. On the other hand if the answer is 'yes'it poses for me questions about where baptism and the Lord's Supper fits into the idea because they seem somehow pretty central to this idea of the thing called 'church' which is th type of Christian community that the Scriptures seem to bear witness to.

Here I am not arguing for a traditional understanding of 'church' but more am asking that when we talk about Christian community we bring a degree more rigour to our talk and thinking that then allows us more thoroughly to wrestlr through what it is that we are desiring and aspiring in the light of the Scriptural witness. In turn such I hink will offer a gretaer critique of that which goes under the name of church and does not display that which we call community rather than allowing Christian community to become the thing we do elsewhere and 'church' the thing we put up with.

Wallis, Gill, Caputo I thank you

I have read a few books in my life - enjoyed many etc. Yet I can name a few that I think had and continue to have an influence on me as a person shaping, defining, and redifining my theology.

One of the first was a book by Jim Wallis called The Call to Conversion the 1970 edition I think (thus not one in picture). I bought it late 70's as a young keen evangelical and thought it was about leading people to Jesus. Instead it was about having being converted to Jesus we needed to be converted to issues of social justice, the poor, non-violence. Not sure how much I got on the first reading but it resonated with my soul and entered my spiritual blood stream in a way that I am still trying to work out. The themes that Wallis raised here still resonate and inspire me and help explain why over the years it has been listening to folks like Wallis, Campolo, John Smith, Ched Myers that have helped me keep the faith when their message has not been the dominant Christian voice I have been exposed to.

 

 

A second book for which I don't have a picture was The Fringes of Freedom by Atholl Gill. Gill was an Australian Baptist and New Testament scholar. The book was published I think in 1990 and was sent to me from Australia by my friends Jeanette Matthews and David Hunter. It was a book about following Jesus, community, care for the marginalised. It involved a series of chapters and bible studies etc. It was from this book that I got the idea of 'Committed at the Core and Open at the Edges' as the ethos for Church life as was subsequently adopted at Kirkintilloch Baptist Church. Indeed if I ever get to write a book on the Church I would love to give it that title. Crucial for me is that the Jesus who defines (redefines?) holiness and sinlessness etc. could both issue to Matthew a call to leave everything and also then sit with outcasts and sinners as friends. Radical discipleship and welcoming hospitality were both features of God defined holiness. Indeed it could be argued that open hospitality is an expression and outworking of that which we call holiness as defined by Jesus. I recently read from this book in class on the theme that we find our identity in relationship with other people and was reminded what a good book it was.

A third book read much more recently and which I am presently reading again is Caputo's book: What Would Jesus Deconstruct.  Oh I love it. It is such fun as it engages the classic In His Steps with postmodern ddeconstruction centred on the person of Jesus Christ. Caputo so gets in this text the deconstructive inner power of Jesus that has the potential ever to move the Church towards the coming Kingdom the latter being something present but not fixed and always coming and therefore free from our absolutisng of it. This book merges with my own anabaptist leanings in a postmoderm mix with its emphasis on Jesus Christ as the centre of our faith and as the only credible inner source for Church renewal in the light of current missional challenges. James K. A. Smith writes in the foreword: 'Here is a book in the tradition of John the Baptist, out to make was for a Messiah who, when he shows up, will ruin all our parties'.

What all these books clearly have in common is a focus on Jesus as the centre of our faith and the example of discipleship thus leading us constantly beyond the safety our of our present into a future found in the pursuit of social justice and concern for the poor as we bear witness to the message of Jesus.

Baptism the awkward practice

What to do, what to do with the practice of baptism? frequently people think that believers's (or should that be believers') baptism is the distinguishing mark of 'Baptist' churches. This is not the case. On the one hand many other groups baptise believers and on the other for Baptists baptism is related to the more fundamental question of the nature of the Church as a believers or gathered or discipling community.

In many conversations about mission and 'missional communities' whereas the Lord's Supper seems to be 'managed' under the wider idea of hospitality and fellowship meals 'baptism' seems a bit awkward. It seems to divide or exclude rather than include and therefore does not sit as comfortably either with ecumenical sensibilities or a missional intent.

In reading material about 'Christian communities' and 'missional communities' I have often noted that while appealing to NT material relating to the church such writing either avoids going the full way to identify their notion of 'community' with church or if they do omits any reference to the practice of 'baptism' in relation to those communities.

One way around this awkwardness is to seperate the practice of baptism from our understanding of the church. This is done by emphasisng the 'individual' and 'personal' nature of baptism as a personal act of obedience more related to ones own personal salvation than to ones now belonging to the new people priesthood/holy nation etc. which in the NT is expressed in that names as church.

I am not convinced that move to the essentially individualistic nature of baptism separating the practice from the 'being added to their number' bit is a valid biblical/theological move. I suggest it owes more toan individualistic reading of the Scripture and understanding of salvation that cuts against rathher than aids the concern that people have for any form of 'community'. Or to put that a bit differently people want to stress the need for 'community' (a vague concept) but remove such ideas from one of the practices which in the NT defines specifically Christian community.

Here I am not really concerned for the arguments of ordinance over and against sacrament and I am happy to live with the idea that baptism is both at least a sign of welcoming grace as much as a sign of outward committment and that what it means for each at the moment of the event may vary. Rather, I am concerned as to how it is now regarded as fitting in to our current talk on Church, Christian communities, missional communities.

Going a bit further while I find it a anachronistic to ntalk about NT churches as 'missional communities' I am sure that we would want to argue that they were in the sense of seeking from a minority position and non-Christendom position to share the faith. Yet, they stressed the importance of baptism. If this is the case at least not wrestling with this issue if not emphasisng the place of baptism in coming to be part of the new people of Jesus may be hindering rather than helping our 'mission'.

Baptism is awkward - I would prefer we wrestled with it, however, than ignored it while claiming NT warrant for our other practices of 'mission' and 'community' and all that stuff.

 

Is 'Baptist' an add on...?

Is the issue of a specific 'baptist identity' simply an add on?

The add on may be considered convenient - offers to a Church or individual a body of accountability, accreditation, pension, support...

The add on may be considered:

non relevant (hence practice of dropping name 'Baptist' from Church name in favour of the much more relevant and appealling word 'community' [irony going on here]) or indeed

unwelcome as the term Baptist in light of not least some American expressions can convey something pretty ugly!

But convenient or inconvenient is 'baptist' an add on.  So viewed there can be the concern to emphasise that first we are: Christian, orthodox, evangelical, missional, charismatic, contemporary, bible believing, reformed, protestant people with at the end an oh yes 'Baptist' - in that in some general way we broadly agree with the Baptist Union's declaration of principle.

Recognisng the 'add on' special interest group nature of 'baptist' is good for (at least some) ecumenical relationhsips and working with others it. In turn some would claim also that it makes us more missionally attractive because people today are not interested in denominational difference (although I think that it is not that people don't care whether we are a denomination or not but rather they don't care as to whether we care about being a denomination - not the same thing and a discussion for another day).

On the other hand if it is simply an 'add on' the necessity of maintaining it at all on an institutional or indeed relational level  must surely come into question encalign more easily with others more like us on other grounds: georgraphical location, viewouraging us to align more readliy with others with whom we find agreement on leadership styles, certain moral issues, how we function in practice. 

All of this begs the question of course of what is the 'baptist' thing?

In order not simply to recite a list of principles I push at the idea that the baptist thing at core involves a particular view of the church whereby at core the 'church' involves a gathered and gathering hermeutical community marked by baptism which together as co-priests with one another seeks to live under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and seeks in presence of Word and Spirit to work out what it means to apply that Lordship in ministry and mission.

(Decide for yourself whether this is fair reading of the Baptist Union of Scotlands Declaration of Principle available here: http://www.scottishbaptist.org.uk/downloads

As a core matter such an understanding shapes our views on leadership, mission, etc.

In saying that at core the baptist thing is a view of church related to living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ I don't mean an adherence to this 'principle' as a belief but a convivtional commitment in practice to the way things are done. It is a pretty well established idea that principles without practice is dead!

To be sure to emphasise practice may mean that there are those called 'Baptist' who are not 'baptist' in practice and likewise those not so called who in practice are.

But to return to the question: is this 'baptist' understanding of the nature of the church in relation to the living Jesus with the attendant features 'core' to 'Baptist identity' or not?

I guess the starting place for answering this question is among those of us who own the name and have signed up to the Principle.