Politurgy

Process as well as Product in Congregational Discernment

One of the recent issues of discussion in various places has been the nature of the cpongregational participation in church discussion and decision making. From a Baptist perspective with the mix of Scripture and Spirit in such discussions we can use the language of communal or congregational discernment.

One danger in this discussion about congregational participation is that it is seen only as a means to discuss and discern. To put that differently in some of the discussions the focus becomes on the 'product' - the outcome: decision and discernment. When this is the focus the debate then tends to veer in the direction of the other ways in which decisions can be made - perhaps more 'effective' ways. In turn the question is raised about the role of 'leadership' in guiding and making decisions. There are a number of issues that need to be unpacked here from a theological perspective but here I want to suggest that discussions about congregational participation in discernment need also to consider the value of the 'process' as well as the 'product'.

What I mean by the above: that the 'process' is as important as the product, is to say the value of congregational participation is not simply the product of decision but is itself the 'thing' that helps the congregation become the type of people, the type of community, that we desire to be. Or to put that differently - if we desire to be a congregation that grow up in maturity into Christ the head an important part in the maturing process is our engagement in discussion and dialogue with one another. Viewed in this way the 'time' that such processes of congregational participation take are not then just as slow way to make decisions but an important way in making 'disciples'.

To support the above a couple of ideas from dialogical and conversational studies as discussed in O Wesley Allen Jr.'s The Homiletic of All Believers: A Congregational Approach (Lousiville: WJK, 2005).

''Regardless of whether we end our conversations in agreement or not, I am transformed by my conversation with you, you are transformed by your conversation with me, and so on and so forth. In conversation, as we assume the roles of both speakers and listeners, we are give-and-take convertors and converted. But, as noted earlier, we should not think only in terms of individual conversions. Every time a group engages in conversation and individuals change, the group changes as well. Conversation in the church creates individual and communal transformation; it creates conversion to the church, within the church, and of the church.' (23)

 

'For any ecclesial conversation to be an authentic expression of the church's call to be the body of Christ, therefore, a certain amount of trust is necessary. The level of trust, of course deepens as partners sustain a conversational relationship over time'. (25)

 

'Dialogue is not fundamentally a specific communicative form of question and response, but at heart a kind of social relation that engages its participants. A successful dialogue involves a willing partnership and cooperation in the face of likely disagreements, confusions, failures and misunderstandings. Persisting in the process requires a relationship of mutual respexct, trust, concern - and part of the dialogical interchange often must relate to the establishment and maintenance of these bonds. The substance of this interpersonal relation is deeper, and more consistent, than any particular communicative form it might take.' (Nicolas Burbules, cited 25)

 

The process of congregational participation in discussing and discerning the mind of Christ is therefore, as important as the outcome which such a process produces if the goal is to help people grow up as Church into Christ the head. The task of good leadership, therefore, rather than seeking to bypass this approach in order to get to more 'effective' forms should be to invest in developing these forms.

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.

 

 

 

Swords into Ploughshares

Today's lectionary reading Isaiah 2:1-5...

gist of sermon...

 

On September 9^th 1980 eight people trespassed onto the General Electric Nuclear Missile facility in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. On site with small household hammers they damaged nuclear warhead nose cones and poured blood onto documents and files. The group became known as the Ploughshares Eight. They were arrested and charged with numerous crimes. On that day they essentially founded what is called the ‘Ploughshares Movement’. This is a movement committed to the ending of nuclear weapons including through the use of non-violent direct action.

They told reporters that as Christians they refused to worship at the altar of the pagan god, Mars, the gof of war. They continued: 'In our action, we draw on a deep rooted faith in Christ, who changed the course of history through his willingness to suffer rather than kill'.

Among the original Plougshares eight were two brothers, Roman Catholic priests and long-time peace activists Daniel and Philip Berrigan. At one point both were on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive list.

Daniel Berrigan in his commentary on Isaiah and commenting on todays lectionary reading writes the following:

“'They will beat their swords into ploughshares'. For most of us, there exist one or two commanding texts , words that beckon us from ‘paralysis of analysis,’ as Martin Luther King Jr., would say, words that beckon us towards simply ‘doing it’. To the Ploughshares community, this text of Isaiah has been a summons – a vigorous word, a word that sets the human in motion"’.

Whether we agree or not with the actions of Ploughshares and the Berrigans it seems to me that they got two things right about Isaiah 2: 1-5...

The 'word of the Lord' is mean to direct our paths (3) ...and we are meant to 'walk in the light of the Lord' with respect to peace...(5)

 

and so on...

 

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

 

 

Baptist Ecclesiology and engaging with Scottish Independence

Elsewhere I have raised questions about what appears to be the lack of 'Baptist' engagement on the issue of Scottish independence.

In talking about Baptist engagement I am not primarily meaning: spokespersons declaring on behalf of all Baptists a unified position.

Rather I am meaning a much earlier stage of  Baptists discussing the issue with one another in relation to our own tradition of the local, the communal, in the light of Scripture and in the presence of the Spirit.

In my experience there is some but not a lot of this going on...

There seems to be several lines of thought on why this is the case, some of it related to understandings of our ecclesiology. Accordingly I want to discuss some objections to engagement and suggest alternative strategies.

 

1. There is no interest in the subject.

I am not convinced this is the case. The same folks who will not discuss the issue in church often seem ready in other contexts to give their opinions and will in fact vote on the day. In turn insofar as the issue is important involving potential structural change it is an issue like many others that should be made important by the 'agenda' setters. In many issues historically the starting point for wider interests has been the contribution of those who have seen the 'significance' of what was at stake.

Rather than no interest in the subject I find interest in the subject but a sense of some confusion. In turn I find a weariness over the political party wrangling and campaign capturing of what is in the end a decision for the Scottish people.  Each campaigning side presents and reads statistics in their own way and can confront one another with questions that cannot be answered without cooperation between the arguing sides! We have reached so far a political stalemate which no White Paper will answer.

Given the above rather than not having conversations because people are apathetic Baptist churches with a tradition of conversing on issues should be able to offer people a different space for a different type of conversation than that which is taken elsewhere.

2. Following on from the above I think a second reason that hinders engagement is that despite the tradition of conversation in discernment, in practice we are not very good at it.

Many Church Meetings have the style and formality of local 'Council' meetings - chair, proposals, ammendments, time limited discussions etc. That is we adopt forms of discussion modelled upon the combative way things are done elsewhere in politics rather than finding ways of enabling open, free conversation, discussion, and debate in a context of 'discerning' a way forward (an issue to which I will return).

In charting a different course some people often think that to stimulate such conversation you just need a topic and a group of people in a room gathered round tables. This is a good start but it does not work that way. Group discussions and participation, let alone the sort that involves spiritual discernment, requires good facilitation and 'habits' learned through doing. From education we can learn some stuff about group dynamics. From our own and other traditions we can learn about the spiritual dimensions. One or two church ministers have done some work on this and  some churches already model alternative ways of communal participation. But the point is - these practices have to be both facilitated and learned. Spiritual discernment is not 'natural' it is learned through engaging in the practice from people who know how.

This issue at the least gives us an opportunity to try and model different approaches of talking and listening to one another, to learn what this means, and to develop practices if we do not already know them which we may carry forward into the future in other discussions on other issues.

 

3. Political issues are not the proper subject for church conversations.

 

This I know is a common feeling if not objection. Behind it lies a couple of assumptions a) there is something distinct about the realm of politics which excludes it as a valid subject for Christian conversation b) politics is essentially a matter of private conviction.

In terms of a) we may be dealing here with peoples implicit theologies. Some may hold to a 'two kingdom idea' regarding what are the proper concerns of the church and what are the proper concerns of the state with the notion that different rules apply to us in such a realm.  This is not the same as the Baptist notion of the seperation of Church and State which yet affirms the sovereignty of God over all of life while recognisng that in Church we should have a greater appreciation of and application of God's Kingdom way while bearing witness to the state as to a better way.

'Politics' is essentially the way things are organised in a society and there is no reason why this should not be given the status as belonging outside the realm of Christ's Rule, Christian discipleship, and witness.

Following on from this in terms of b) personal political affilitaion may be a personal choice but likewise are we really claiming that here is a no go area of question and critique in the light of our Christian faith. I am not arguing here for a 'block vote' on any issue but as I will argue below I am arguing for a vote informed by the faith and communities of conviction to which we belong as part of our new and primary identity in Christ.

4. It is contrary to Baptist ecclesiology to have a 'common opinion' on this issue.

The above point relates to two ideas: a) the freedom of conscience of every believer before Jesus Christ - sometimes referred to as 'soul competency' (see here for an albeit limited discussion on this)  b) the competency of each local congregation to discern what Christ is saying to them.

In response it should be clear that this far I have not been arguing that Baptists should necessarily have a local or national 'one opinion'. I have been arguing that we should be having the conversation in keeping with the practices of our own tradition. In this respect I want to suggest that 'communal discernment', the kind of congregational discussions I am talking about, need not result in a common opinion on this or any other issue - it might, but it need not.

As Christians we exists as church gathered and scattered. We act as church gathered and scattered. we bear witness as church gathered and scattered. A congregational discussion may well decide that this is an area where we act as the church scattered each exercising our own 'vote' according to conscience. Yet, if this is the case following the conversations we will all then carry out our individual acts in the light of having had the chance to discuss the issue with 'brothers and sisters in Christ'. In this discussion we will have had an opportunity to identify the specific Christian issues which are at stake and to hear one anothers hopes and fears. Through this process we may change our position or have it confirmed but we will at the very least have submitted our positions, hopes, and fears to the new humanity the people of God of which we area  a part. Is this a bad thing?

Of course it may well be that the Spirit may move among us in a  way that we all find a common voice - but that common voice as in other areas would be non-coercive on all individuals involved. If the latter is too idealistic (and I suspect it is) at least we will have talked with people of faith in faith about key issues in our society so that we are informed from a different perspective.

Out of the above we may well find that we have Baptists who will speak out as Baptists on this issue without claiming to respresent other Baptists but as those who in the light of our own ecclesiology have sought to discern something of the mind of Christ at the very least to us in the light of the practices and resources of our tradition.

It may be that perceptions of our ecclesiology are preventing engagement but I suggest that what is proposed above is precisely in keeping with our ecclesiology and offers a particular perspective to which we can bear witness.

 

 

 

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.