Politurgy

Process Matters

Free Church (ana) baptsit 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 its and its members lives. The choices open to include if not least - 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.

It can be argued that the nature of such Church engagement as it occurs should be determined by 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 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 in its practices to reflect the way of Jesus a starting point for Church engagement with the wider society can be its own practices. To put that dfifferently, in so far as the Churches own practices in relation to the ordering of its human life and life among humans represent the Kingdom of God engagement can take the form of asking what these would like practiced iin wider society.

Of course there is a problem in the above suggestion and that is that 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.

Process Matters 

 In a (ana)baptist perspective (hereafter baptist) the process of the community making decisions through conversation and consensus is held as a significant Christian practice. The process is as important as the decision in so far as it is a process that relates to understandings of power and relationship under Christ. Such a process includes a recognistion of the importance of every voice including the voice of the most marginal and perhaps even the outsider (1 Cor. 14). To follow this process is to engage in a Christian practice.

Reflecting this thick practice of the discerning Christian community to the situation of the debate on Scottish Independence has a number of implications:

1. The process of discussion and decision matters and should be carried out in an honest and open way including among people of different positions.

2. The goal should not be be to win but to get at the truth.

3. The views of those with whom we differe should be encouraged to be spoken.

4. The views of outsiders to the community should be heard.

Following on from this in respect to the process the Christian Church:

Sould call for such a discussioon and debate to be the nature of what happens in the coming year

Fascilitate community conversations around the issue for members of congregations and for the wider community

Fascilitate and participate in conversations which invite and appreciate the perspectives of other people outside of Scotland including most specifically people from England. On this latter one Scottish congregations could go on a visist to English congregations to visit and talk and engage in cultural exchange and shared worship.

In all of these ways the Christian Church could take its own thick practices of decision making, apply them as thin practice and through them bear witness to their faith.

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.

An Elemental Response to an Elemental Eucharist

At Greenbelt this weekend with Stephen. Having a good time - though muddy. This morning was communion service. This is high point of the festival from the perspective of organisers indicated by the fact that they close down all other activities to encourage people to go.

It is a big event held at the main stage. I have not always enjoyed it in past. Large numbers require organisation and skill at creating 'communion' with one another in large crowd. The use of name 'eucharist' indicates a particular idea. Not in itself an issue but one indicator of the implicit Anglicanism of the festival despite the participation in various ways by others from other traditions.

This year the theme was 'An Elemental Eucharist' making connections with 'fire', 'wind' 'water', 'earth'. Suggestion in advertisng programme is that it would be different from what happens in churches and there would be no sermon, and people would be moving around.

I did not go - though observed from a distance. Danger of advertisng that something is different or creative is that you invite critique on that - the creativity and the performance. Also puts pressure on the organisers like those on the guy who had to arrange the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games have to deliver!

Obervations: there was an attempt to include too many things and other symbols in an act that has its own central symbols that push us to the core Jesus  with the potential of past, present, future, communal re-membering.

Furthermore while advertised as 'multi-voiced' this was yet a fundamentally controlled 'liturgy' by a number of voices. This is like thinking that there is great participation in a church because you have a worship leader who does stuff along with the 'minister' where in fact what you now have is one or two controlling voices with the views and opinions and genuine responses of the people struggling to break through.

I also don't get the - we are having no sermon thing as an idea of radicalism when and where the controlling liturgists fundamentally are doing what a sermon at communion can - help people find a common way in to this event rather than simply an individual participation.  

I would like these big communions to pull back - trust the actual 'elemental event' which is not found in the creativity of the performance or the surrounding liturgy but in human people gathering around breaking bread and poured out wine trying to make sense of what it now means for them to be responding ever anew to the Jesus past present and future who is revealling his self now in this group of people.

I was not there, how do I know what it was really like, how can I judge as an observor rather than participant. I am a Scot, not an Anglican  and might not get some of this. I am guilty as charged. Guilty - but exercisng my freedom not to have to agree to all that goes on and hopeful that for all who participated it worked for them.

Starting theological reflection on Scottish Independence

Theology is:

the discovery, understanding or interpretation, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is. (McClendon)

The starting point for Baptist theological reflection on Scottish Independence is not Scottish Independence, nationalism, democracy, economics etc. but the faith and practice of the people of God as a convictional community.

This is the recognition that the Church should reflect the ways of the Kingdom of God as that which lives explicitly under the rule of Christ and that the world is not the Church.

This is not a two kingdom theology where Christians are allowed to act one way in the Church and another in the World because they belong to different spheres e.g. in the Church we are peaceful but in the world we use violence because well 'that is the way of the world'.

Rather it is a theology that starts with the convictional community of the Church its practices and teaching as being that which determines Christian behaviour. From this position Christians consider how they can bear witness to the world in the world as to the life of the kingdom as lived out in their own practices. In biblical language Christians seek to be salt and light through their corporate and scattered lives.

Some cautions:

To be effective witnesses the Church has to be living authentically under the Lordship of Jesus Christ - this is frequently quite simply not the case. Without this the rest falls.

The Church should not seek to 'force' on non believing people its own views which are derived from their faith in Jesus Christ - the world is not the Church. In a democracy Christians will participate in democratic processes but even here will have caution to enforce on minorities religous convictions. It is ironic that in the Church we can talk about being saved by 'grace through faith' in Christ but then want to use the secular law to enforce on other people our behaviours!!! This, however, should not prevent Christian sfrom being actively involved against situations of discrimination, violence, poverty etc. where people are being crushed: Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King etc. This is quite different from arguing for self interest. The active evangelical left and evangelical right are not operating out of the same position.

In bearing witness the convictional community which is the Church will have to use 'thin descriptions' to share its 'thick convictions' for example in bearing witness to non-violence it will work with all those who are working for violence reduction evenalthough this may not come from the same basis or go to the same extent that they as Christians would and do in their own lives. To illustrate John Howard Yoder would advocate Just War Theory as preferable to indiscriminate violonce evenalthough he himself was a committed pacifist.

The starting point for theological reflection on Scottish Indepenence, therefore, is the life and teaching of the Church.

 

 

 

 

Starting theological reflection on Scottish Independence

Theology is:

the discovery, understanding or interpretation, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is. (McClendon)

The starting point for Baptist theological reflection on Scottish Independence is not Scottish Independence, nationalism, democracy, economics etc. but the faith and practice of the people of God as a convictional community.

This is the recognition that the Church should reflect the ways of the Kingdom of God as that which lives explicitly under the rule of Christ and that the world is not the Church.

This is not a two kingdom theology where Christians are allowed to act one way in the Church and another in the World because they belong to different spheres e.g. in the Church we are peaceful but in the world we use violence because well 'that is the way of the world'.

Rather it is a theology that starts with the convictional community of the Church its practices and teaching as being that which determines Christian behaviour. From this position Christians consider how they can bear witness to the world in the world as to the life of the kingdom as lived out in their own practices. In biblical language Christians seek to be salt and light through their corporate and scattered lives.

Some cautions:

To be effective witnesses the Church has to be living authentically under the Lordship of Jesus Christ - this is frequently quite simply not the case. Without this the rest falls.

The Church should not seek to 'force' on non believing people its own views which are derived from their faith in Jesus Christ - the world is not the Church. In a democracy Christians will participate in democratic processes but even here will have caution to enforce on minorities religous convictions. It is ironic that in the Church we can talk about being saved by 'grace through faith' in Christ but then want to use the secular law to enforce on other people our behaviours!!! This, however, should not prevent Christian sfrom being actively involved against situations of discrimination, violence, poverty etc. where people are being crushed: Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King etc. This is quite different from arguing for self interest. The active evangelical left and evangelical right are not operating out of the same position.

In bearing witness the convictional community which is the Church will have to use 'thin descriptions' to share its 'thick convictions' for example in bearing witness to non-violence it will work with all those who are working for violence reduction evenalthough this may not come from the same basis or go to the same extent that they as Christians would and do in their own lives. To illustrate John Howard Yoder would advocate Just War Theory as preferable to indiscriminate violonce evenalthough he himself was a committed pacifist.

The starting point for theological reflection on Scottish Indepenence, therefore, is the life and teaching of the Church.

 

 

 

 

and its teaching and looks at how and in what ways this can 'season' and 'shine light' to use biblical imagery in the world.

Starting theological reflection on Scottish Independence

Theology is:

the discovery, understanding or interpretation, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is. (McClendon)

The starting point for Baptist theological reflection on Scottish Independence is not Scottish Independence, nationalism, democracy, economics etc. but the faith and practice of the people of God as a convictional community.

This is the recognition that the Church should reflect the ways of the Kingdom of God as that which lives explicitly under the rule of Christ and that the world is not the Church.

This is not a two kingdom theology where Christians are allowed to act one way in the Church and another in the World because they belong to different spheres e.g. in the Church we are peaceful but in the world we use violence because well 'that is the way of the world'.

Rather it is a theology that starts with the convictional community of the Church its practices and teaching as being that which determines Christian behaviour. From this position Christians consider how they can bear witness to the world in the world as to the life of the kingdom as lived out in their own practices. In biblical language Christians seek to be salt and light through their corporate and scattered lives.

Some cautions:

To be effective witnesses the Church has to be living authentically under the Lordship of Jesus Christ - this is frequently quite simply not the case. Without this the rest falls.

The Church should not seek to 'force' on non believing people its own views which are derived from their faith in Jesus Christ - the world is not the Church. In a democracy Christians will participate in democratic processes but even here will have caution to enforce on minorities religous convictions. It is ironic that in the Church we can talk about being saved by 'grace through faith' in Christ but then want to use the secular law to enforce on other people our behaviours!!! This, however, should not prevent Christian sfrom being actively involved against situations of discrimination, violence, poverty etc. where people are being crushed: Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King etc. This is quite different from arguing for self interest. The active evangelical left and evangelical right are not operating out of the same position.

In bearing witness the convictional community which is the Church will have to use 'thin descriptions' to share its 'thick convictions' for example in bearing witness to non-violence it will work with all those who are working for violence reduction evenalthough this may not come from the same basis or go to the same extent that they as Christians would and do in their own lives. To illustrate John Howard Yoder would advocate Just War Theory as preferable to indiscriminate violonce evenalthough he himself was a committed pacifist.

The starting point for theological reflection on Scottish Indepenence, therefore, is the life and teaching of the Church.

 

 

 

 

and its teaching and looks at how and in what ways this can 'season' and 'shine light' to use biblical imagery in the world.

Discussing Independence as a Theological Issue

In an earlier post I raised the issue of whether or not Scottish independence is a theological issue.

I referred to Baptist theologian James Wm. McClendons definition of theology:

the discovery, understanding or interpretation, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is.

Accordingly I argued that independence is a theological issue because at the very least it constitutes a contextual ‘whatever else there is’ in relation to which we in Scotland and indeed the UK are doing our theology.

To reframe this: the political and cultural context of Scottish Nationalism and a vote on Independence is part of the mission landscape in which we are seeking to work out what it means to be ‘unashamedly missional’.

Sticking with McClendon’s definition I want in this post simply to carry forward this idea that this is a subject that should find its way into our local and national Baptist discussions.

The reason I am pursuing here is that while we will all have our own views on this subject that there is a corporate dimension to the Baptist practice of doing theology. This corporate dimension is explicit in McClendon’s notion of theology whereby ‘convictions’ are the ‘thick beliefs’ of a ‘convictional community’.

To be sure we recognise the individual ‘soul freedom’ and ‘liberty’ of individuals before Christ. In turn we may not consider it a significant enough issues on which to find a common voice. (Though through discussions we may change our minds on this). Yet at the very least the free decisions we make as individuals should be made in relation to our interaction and participation with others at local and national levels.

Inviting into these conversations the ‘outsider’ perspective such as folks South of the Border would in turn enrich our convictional discernment.

Such discussion can not only help inform our personal choices but can help keep our thinking Christian on the matter. This is particularly the case because an uncritical Christian allegiance to any national identity including the status quo of Britain and its liturgies (singing the national anthem in church) is clearly something of an ‘alien loyalty’. This loyalty alien loyalty has had horrific historic consequences when and where Christianity and National identity have as it were marched together in the name of Jesus!

 

 

Is Scottish Independence a theological matter?

Here and there, now and then, I have raised concerns that within my own Church grouping (convictional community) both at a national (Baptist Union of Scotland) and at a local Church level the subject of Scottish Independence is being given little attention in our theological deliberations.

Generally I have found responses to this cool if not frosty.

Why So?

For some it seems to be because it is potentially a divisive issue.

For some it is because it is to do specifically with politics.

For some it is because the Bible says nothing explicitly about the issue even though it may be conceded that general matters of governance and nationhood are prevalent throughout the Scriptures.

For some it is the combination of the above: why discuss something of secondary importance to the Scriptures when it is likely to be divisive and we won’t have anything specific to say on it anyway?

 I hear the objections. On the one hand I am not convinced that any of them stand in their own right and on the other hand we do not apply the above censuring restrictions to other topics.

Furthermore these objections do not address the question of whether Scottish Independence is a theological issue.

According to baptist theologian James Wm McLendon Jr. theology is:

the discovery, understanding or interpretation, and transformation of the convictions of a convictional community, including the discovery and critical revision of their relation to one another and to whatever else there is.

This definition requires its own detailed exposition and I will return to it in other posts. For the purpose of this post, however, I am simply interested in the ‘whatever else there is’.

This phrase reminds us at least that theology and theological thinking does not take place in a vacuum but is constantly contextual.

Part of theological thinking in a Scottish context is Scottish Nationalism and a future vote which will take place on whether Scotland for purposes of democratic governance should become an independent country. Indeed as I was reminded recently while attending a conference (down South) the Scottish question is a British question because an independent Scotland will indeed change the complexion of what we know as Britain.

If for no other reason the matter of Scottish Independence and the surrounding debates is a theological issue because it is a ‘whatever else there is’ and a pretty significant one at that.

Abandoning the Aids to Worship ?

(Here is next in series of 'wee scottish baptist voices - this time by Ian Mundie longtime Scottish Baptist minister)

Now being halfway through my eighth decade, I have been able to observe many ‘shifts’ in the way we ‘do Church’, not least in the arena of worship.   Like a number of my contemporaries find, it’s so easy to be critical of some of these changes and not take account of the way in which they often bring benefits and relevance to worship.

 

With more free expressions of worship there can often be a diminution of the sense of awe and wonder.   This may be seen in the choice of hymns and songs, which don’t always reflect the grandeur of the Godhead, or enable us to ‘bow in subjection’ to Him.   In much of our singing the ‘I’ and the ‘me/my/mine’ seem to dominate, though we may ‘look to Him’ to be there for us in our situations and circumstances.   When we welcome the Lord into our midst we appear to have reversed the roles – is it not that we come into His presence with thanksgiving and gratitude?

 

Ian Birch, in his piece about ‘From pulpit to lectern to music stand’ (posted 29 June 2012), emphasises the way the subtle shifts taking place in our informal approach to worship lessen the divine-human encounter.   Combine with this the use, or over-use, of the Power Point as the important aid to worship  -  not that I object to it as a useful tool  -  and you might find another way of   But should it not be used in conjunction with the other important aids to our worship?

 

Displaying the Bible passage on screen can be helpful, but what does that do for the ‘Bible-carrying congregation?   When we need to look at some other Bible passage, either during the sermon, or just simply to reflect on some verse or verses that come to mind, does the Power Point meet our need?   But we can choose to bring, or not to bring, our Bibles to Church.   But, of course, there may be copies under the seats!

 

And what about the hymnbook?   These are not always provided for the congregation anymore.    If these are not available, and we can’t recall the line from three songs back, which had spoken to us, and ask ….how did it convey that thought again….how does that help us?   Quite often it’s good to reflect on the words that the hymn-writers have been gifted to put together to express the mighty things of God and His purposes, and His salvation in Christ.   But with no books to refer to, we sing the line once (- or perhaps 22 times!) and its gone!   No going back to recall its import!

 

But not only do we abandon the opportunity for reflection in the heart of our worship, but we abandon the great library of hymns old and new from which we learn about our God and Saviour, and through which we are enabled to offer ‘reasonable worship’ to the Lord.

 

Of course, let’s make use of the modern aids.   Let’s lift up our eyes and our heads as we sing to the screen.   But please ensure that our Bibles and hymnbooks are available as the more important aids to sincere worship when we gather together -  we diminish our devotional encounter without them! 

 

Let’s not make it an ‘either-or’, but a ‘both-and’, and that’s from a ‘seasoned saint’ !!

 

Ian Mundie

 

From pulpit to lectern to Music stand

(Some time ago I said that in run up to Scottish Baptist Assembly I would try and post some guest things under heading of 'wee scotish baptist voices'  - well these voices have so far been silent but here Ian Birch speaks up...)

(Opinions are writers own...)

From pulpit to lectern to Music stand

I was recently at a service of Christian worship, and when
the preacher stood up to speak she was not invited to the pulpit, she not place
her script on a lectern, no, her pages were placed on a music stand, hastily relocated
from the worship band to centre stage - front. From this wobbly frame of metal
strips the word of the Lord was proclaimed to the gathered audience.

The sermon was very fine, but throughout the preaching I
kept wondering if there is anything significant about this recent custom, which
is now fairly common for us itinerant preachers, of being asked to preach from
a music stand. What are we to make of
this, if anything?

First there is a practical consideration. The flimsy,
lightweight construction of the music stand, designed to be portable and transportable
is barely adequate for the purpose, in my opinion. I have preached on occasion
waiting for the stand to collapse, or my notes to scatter in the wind. I do not
here address the question of whether the congregation would delight to see the
preacher silenced in such fashion.

Is a music stand up to the job, I ask? Well, it has put an
end to the ridiculous theatrical practice of thumping the pulpit and bellowing
‘belovéd’, which was characteristic of preaching I recall from my childhood.
But generally speaking I find it is not, and would prefer a simple but adequate
lectern.

Second, I wonder if there is something more significant
about the employment of a music stand as the preacher’s lectern. Does it imply
that the preaching is an intrinsic part of the worship, rather than what comes
after the worship, as is so often declared? Preaching does not come after the
worship, it is not apart from the worship, but continuous with our worship as
singing.

Here is a wee story from Donald Coggan, one time archbishop
of Canterbury, in his book A New Day for
Preaching:

‘In the course of my work as
Archbishop, I had occasion to go to a certain town which had as its main glory
an ancient church. The incumbent, with commendable vigour, had raised a large
sum of money to refashion the church, to restore it to something of its former
glory, and to adapt it it for greater usefulness under modern conditions. I was
to preach at A Eucharist at its rehallowing. The greatest possible care had
been put into the preparation of the service. Architecturally, the central
feature was the altar, central and resplendent. There could be no doubt that
the Church of England was a sacramental church, nor where it was that her
children should kneel to be fed. There was one focus. You could not miss it.

‘This is very fine, Vicar. You
have done magnificently. Now – you have asked me to preach. Where do I preach from?’ ‘They will
bring you in a little stand, Archbishop, when the time comes.’ And they did. A
poor, paltry thing it was, liable to collapse if by any chance I leaned upon
it, the sort of temporary contraption from which anyone might have scorned to
give out the notices of the week. This was to be the thing from which the
everlasting Gospel was to be proclaimed. As soon as the sermon was over, it was
taken awy into oblivion. And good riddance too!

I wonder if there is a danger of making the setting for
preaching so informal, even casual, that we diminish the divine-human encounter
we wish to take place in this activity. I only ask.