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.
Recent Comments