Politurgy

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 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.

 

 

 

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. 

 

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.

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.