Politurgy

Scottish Baptist Practical Theology and Scottish Independence

I am begging to feel like a dog with a bone on this issue but i am going to hang on and keep worrying away at it for a number of reasons:

As long as people are intending to vote on an issue that  involves the very nature of the structure of society it is an activity worth theological reflection

As long as misison is concerned with the transformation of society it si an activity with missional implications

As long as I hear James W McClendon asking about the lack of explicit 'baptist' theology I will keep trying to stimulate some

Here I want to say some things about present Scottish Baptist Practical Theology and ask about the implications of this for questions of Independence.

Practice expresses theological conviction. By this I do not simply mean that it reveals peoples theological convictions but that it also generates theological convictions. Peoples practice is a source for theological reflection on their convictions. Some refer to the theology of practice as our 'operant' theology - basically it is the theology expressed in our actions.

In practice we have a seperate and indeed independent Baptist Union of Scotland - albeit one which exists in various fellowships and Unions with other and wider associations. Yet on issues of governanace and power - well that remains 'local' at least in a 'national' sense, accepting that there are I believe one or two churches both North and South (here I am using the Scottish/English border as a divide) which belong to the alternate or maybe both Unions.

The governanace of the Baptist Union of Scotland is not devolved from the Baptist Union of Great Britain but is as it were 'autonomous'.

This being the case I wonder about the theological significance and rationale for having a seperate Unions. Perhaps the response will be that it is simply a matter of history and pragmatics - which is fine though may beg the question as to whether on this issue we are placing an area of our life outside of the authority of Jesus Christ as revealled in the Scriptures which we claim is our authority in matters of faith and practice. 

Now here I am not quite ready to re-enter a previous argument that the 'politics' of the Church should reflect the 'politics' of the kingdom and accordingly we should seek to see it replicated at least in some 'thin' way in wider culture...I might return to that... :)

Rather here I find myself asking:

'what is the theology expressed in having seperate Unions?'

'on what grounds can we justify seperate and Independent Unions but not seperate and independent nations in terms of governance?'

just worrying and wondering...

 

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...

 

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. 

 

Flying the flag once again...

Last Saturday with some others I particpated again in the Christian act of witness outside the gates of the Faslane naval base on the Clyde, home to the submarines which carry Britain's independent nuclear detterent (weapons of mass destruction from another perspective).

This is only the second time that this particular event has been organised by SCANA the Scottish Clergy Against Nuclear Arms and in a variety of ways showed  improvement on the previous year in terms of the actual location of the gathering (facing the gates) and the symbolism (weaving palm branches into a heart shape) the sharing of bread and wine (Agape for some but Communion for others) etc.

The crucified lamb flag related to the book of Revelation and associated with some anabaptist publications and in this form obtained from the Jesus Radical people attracted some interesting questions and comments as a distinctive contribution to the event - not least because one of our number had created a huge version of it!

A number of issues rumble around my mind about this whole thing:

Why such a low interest in terms of turn out and participation (200?) - where does this issue sit on 'the radar' of Christian interest and priority even among those groups unlike my own (Baptist Union of Scotland) that have a stated position of opposition - or is it that people are concerned about the issue but see no value in the event but if so how is that expressed in practice.

How can what is said by speakers and in liturgy, sung, etc. be consciously shaped as a 'Word Against the Powers'?

How can the drama and performance of the the event as 'witness' be developed beyond the 'stage' centred activities of the speakers?

Would it be significant for a free church, broadly evangelical presence to be more actively and visibly present at such events? Oh I felt the irony of Kathy Galloway, I believe it was, quoting from the Baptist minister and Civil Rights activist Martin Luther King when we are actually one of the groups who choose not to be formal participants.

What next within the Baptist Union of Scotland - should I be content to let the present staus quo of albeit now recognised 'minority interest' stand? Is this simply the necessity of unity in diversity - perhaps. But what does this mean if you come to a conviction that 'peace' is not an option to the core of the gospel but central? Should the issue of our public stance on this issue be caried once more into the debating if not discerning processes of our Union life?

(Thanks to Stephen for the pictures)