Politurgy

Not the Primary thing but the Primal thing

Discussion and debates abound concerning whether mission or discipleship or ecclesiology should have the primacy as we in the Church in the West try and work out what it means to bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ...

Frost and Hirsch among others argue that in our post-Christian, Christendom (etc) context we need to allow missiology to take priority over ecclesiology. Sneaking along quickly on the outside of this debate seeking ascendency at the present is discipleship as the primary idea.

As these three compete in a variety of discourses to pass the finishing line as the 'first' a lot of time and attention is given to each of them and in turn their relationship to one another. Of that relationship I would say that it is clearly necessary and complex and linear hierarchical gradings of significance are probably unhelpful.

I also think that for the sake of mission, discipleship, and the church we need to stop focussing on them because I think that they are the outcomes not the precurrsors of something more primal - a dynamic relationship with the living Christ whose name is Jesus. Oh to be sure we can say that this demonstrates that mission (missio Dei) proceeded the coming of Jesus but that is like saying God preceeded the coming of Jesus - it is an ontological sort of statement that does not really get us anywhere when we ask about what that now means for the practice of the Christian Church.

Christian mission, discipleship, and the church are outcpomes of that which is not simply primary - but primal - dynamic relationship with the living Christ whose name is Jesus. This is the one to whom we need to constantly turn as in the presence of the Spirit we seek to discern what he is saying to us in relation to the Scripture so that in our practices as disciples we can say 'this is that' which we read in the Sciptures and a foretaste now of the kingdom yet still to full come then. So connected we can engage together (church) in the lifestyle (discipleship) that enables us to bear faithful witness (mission) to Jesus Christ.

Such connecting and discerning is something that we are not very good at, we don't find it easy, it is demanding and time consuming, it involves the blood and tears of mutual appreciation, listening, service and sacrifice. So instead to bring us life we focus on the other things mission, discipleship, and church and talk much about them without in the long term necessarily seeing things change. Why? - because we are focussing on the outcomes rather than the source -or to be a bit more biblical in my metaphors - we are focussing on the fruit that we are trying to produce through our own sheer effort rather than the vine who lifes it in us.

I am concerned for mission, discipleship, and the church - because of that I think we need to learn and risk connection with the much more dangerously primal - the living Christ whose name is Jesus.

No theology, bad theology, ethical theology

First thing I caught on radio this morning as kettle boiled furiously behind me (sure it is meant to swithch itself off) was further discussion on British government plans on immigration. Deptuty Prime minister said that he would not support and more restrictions and indicated that he would not support sticking a big no entry sign on the cliffs of Dover.

First thought...Dover is very far away from my day to day life. Second thought immigration is such a part of the biblical story of salvation. Third thought, I wonder if there is an evangelical/Baptist theology, reponse to issues of immigration?

I suspect that the answer to this will be no. This worries me, as the lack of response to questions of Scottish independence worries me - because it seems to me increasing that on major socio-political issues we lack any sort of theological ability to engage in a Biblical, Spirit led, congregational, engagement.

Why does this matter - well because historically no theology and bad theology have implicitly and explicitly supported such things as apartheid, racism, and various oppressive regimes. Whereas good and ethical theology has often undergirded the prophetic critique of these. Here I think of  those who in South Africa declared apartheid a heresy and those in Nazi Germany who said 'No' to the domianant ideologies supporting the actions of the regime. To be sure in hindsight we praise the prophets but at the time we in the evangelical churches were often those who rejected them.

It seems to me that the 'failure' of our theology to engage with these issues raises questions about the adequacy of our theology to ensure that we bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ beyond anything but a very limited number of areas and in turn weakens our correct claim that Jesus Christ is Lord over all, the world as well as the church, the public as well as the personal.

I do not think things need to be like this - but we certainly need to learn a more robust, theological, and ethical response to issues for the sake of our mission and discipleship if the concern is to bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ as we go on our way in this world.

If I were to be asked why I think we do not have a more theological and ethical response to these issues I suspect that on the one hand we do not know how and on the other hand that to confront these issues may require us to repent.

 

 

 

Practical Theology and Integrity

I like the ideas raised in the book 'Talking about God' in relation to practical theology as a practice that theology reflects upon practice as through an 'action research model'.

As part of this the authors identify four different types of theology that can be part of the rationale behind/present in any activity under consideration :

Formal Theology - Theology of Theologians in academic discipline

Normative Theology - (depending on tradition) Scriptures, Creeds, Teaching Church

Espoused Theology - the way in which a group articulates its beliefs

Operant Theology - the theology embedded within the actual practices of a group

I am sure that from the perspective at the very least of the leadership that these different theologies are integrated in a consistent way- e.g. what happens in practice reflects the theology which is espoused in relation to that which is normative and explained by the appropriate (chosen) theologians.

In contrast I suggest that on many an occasion the theology embedded in practice reveals a theology different from the other expressions.

On the one hand this indicates the importance of our practices as 'first order' theology. On the other hand it indicates the importance of exploring our practices to 'see' what they 'say' about our theological convictions.

So here goes - say in practice we support nuclear weapons - what does that reveal about our understandings of:

Church and State...Peace...the Sermon on the Mount...eschatology etc,. I push harder does it mean that a lot of our Christmas talk and indeed evangelistic preaching on Jesus as Prince of Peace - good biblical and espoused theology, in practice lacks integrity...just asking...

 

   

 

 

Baptists Identity and A View From the South

Independence and Baptist Identity is not simply a Scottish issue and the sort of Baptist conversations I am advocating would welcome perspectives of folks from outside Scotland and outside Baptist circles - that is part of the nature of such conversations.

So here is a perspective from the South:

http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/11/scottish-independence-baptists-and-politics.html

 

 

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.

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. 

 

 

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.

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.

 

Praise bands...

Recommended by  a friend I am presently reading this book.

The other day on plane back from doing some external examining the author (Smith) provoked me by defending some of the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' kind of songs. His argument (not I should say without critique of these songs) is that we are embodied human beings whose primary 'drive' is love (not thinking or believing but desiring) and so accordingly such 'love' sentiments even indeed of the 'eros' sort may be appropriate in worship. This reminded me of something Campolo wrote years ago with reference to 'Song of Songs'. Anyway that is one issue... (note this is not a book primarily about worship leading but offers a particular 'anthropology' of human personhood and the significance of formative cultural 'liturgies').

Doing some further 'research' into the possible consequences of what he writes in this book for theological education I came across an open letter he addressed to 'praise bands' - Open Letter To Praise Bands.

As on who has led and been led by praise bands I think I fully agree with what he says here.

I think I would also suggest: if any of us are up there without the committment to help the congregation worship, with considered attention to what that means, and the willingness to sacrifice our own preferences, needs, and wants for the sake of the 'body' - we should sit down.

 

I am still not sure what to do about the dirty feet

'I am still not sure what to do about the dirty feet'. This was the title of my sermon preached at Leslie Baptist on Sunday night. I thought it up - the title not the sermon - on the way over in the car.

The sermon structure was: stuff and a story. This is not a form recommended in many books.

The passage read for preaching - John 13. I was not following the lectionary you may gather.

Talk about footwashing as an act in church services makes my feet curl in discomfort. The 'threat' that we might actually do it - increases my discomfort. Just ask those in my reading group. Thank goodness a basin could not be found the night this subject came up in the kreider and kreider book on mission and worship!!!!

Yet I have continued to reflect upon this passage and this practice ever since that night. I am suspicious enough of my own reactions to question them (doctrine about sin going on here) and Jesus made footwashing an issue of importance related to his passion and offered it as an example (dangerous memory of Jesus thing going on here).

Some groups practice footwashing as part of worship services. Indeed there are grounds to claim that it should be treated as an 'ordinance' (ordained by Christ) like Baptism and the Lord's Supper - and perhaps indeed like them a 'sacrament' - whatever we mean by that.

Others respond by saying that the act and practice of footwashing itself relates to the cultural context and the important thing that Jesus was teaching was the importance of the having a loving and servant heart.

I get this response but it troubles me:

Jesus did not simply teach an attittude or principle but demonstrated it in a particular act and practice. So - what does a servant heart of the footwashing type look like in practice? What actions can we point to - in our services and beyond about which we can say 'this is that' which Jesus enacted in the footwashing thing. Surely it means more than middle class politeness?

Furthermore there is the whole argument that it is the practices of our worship that shape our behaviours and beliefs so that those who practice footwashing in worship are more likely to engage in similar acts of sacrificial service and love. (I need to follow this up).

I know that some times folks today practice hand washing - I don't have the same hang ups about this and it can certainly be meaningful but I still don't know what I think, no feel, about the dirty feet thing.

What I do know is that Jesus exampled  a servant kind of love that is prepared to get close and physical in its engagement with others in a way I find uncomfortable.