Politurgy

Democracy and Democracy

Here and there I read that the Free Church tradition including Baptist congregationalism contributed to the development of constitutional democracy at least in the USA.

Of course Baptits would argue rightly that they do not practice a democracy but congregational discernment of the mind of Christ - a theocracy - yes - but discerned and interpreted by the congregation. This said the above point of the thick practices of the Church having a thin application in the State perhaps stands.

Of course 'democracy' is not a uniform thing and comes in many shapes and sizes. Not all democracies equally allow people to be represented. Projecting from the Baptist thing - of course the issue is not about representation but about participation and responsibility. To be sure many Baptist 'meetings' and 'practices' do not necessarily encourage such. Be this as it may this is surely the goal.

In turn while democracy is better than no democracy - the Baptist projection of the thick practice of congregational discernment into the thin practices of the State should favour those approaches which enable the greates participation and responsibility of its citizens.

The above said we probabaly have to admit that we have a bit to go in Baptist Church life to develop the thick practice of the kind of congregational discernment and decision making processes that can bear effective witness to the State as a sign of the Kingdom come.

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.

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.

 

 

 

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. 

 

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.