Politurgy

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.

Praise bands...

Recommended by  a friend I am presently reading this book.

The other day on plane back from doing some external examining the author (Smith) provoked me by defending some of the 'Jesus is my boyfriend' kind of songs. His argument (not I should say without critique of these songs) is that we are embodied human beings whose primary 'drive' is love (not thinking or believing but desiring) and so accordingly such 'love' sentiments even indeed of the 'eros' sort may be appropriate in worship. This reminded me of something Campolo wrote years ago with reference to 'Song of Songs'. Anyway that is one issue... (note this is not a book primarily about worship leading but offers a particular 'anthropology' of human personhood and the significance of formative cultural 'liturgies').

Doing some further 'research' into the possible consequences of what he writes in this book for theological education I came across an open letter he addressed to 'praise bands' - Open Letter To Praise Bands.

As on who has led and been led by praise bands I think I fully agree with what he says here.

I think I would also suggest: if any of us are up there without the committment to help the congregation worship, with considered attention to what that means, and the willingness to sacrifice our own preferences, needs, and wants for the sake of the 'body' - we should sit down.

 

I am still not sure what to do about the dirty feet

'I am still not sure what to do about the dirty feet'. This was the title of my sermon preached at Leslie Baptist on Sunday night. I thought it up - the title not the sermon - on the way over in the car.

The sermon structure was: stuff and a story. This is not a form recommended in many books.

The passage read for preaching - John 13. I was not following the lectionary you may gather.

Talk about footwashing as an act in church services makes my feet curl in discomfort. The 'threat' that we might actually do it - increases my discomfort. Just ask those in my reading group. Thank goodness a basin could not be found the night this subject came up in the kreider and kreider book on mission and worship!!!!

Yet I have continued to reflect upon this passage and this practice ever since that night. I am suspicious enough of my own reactions to question them (doctrine about sin going on here) and Jesus made footwashing an issue of importance related to his passion and offered it as an example (dangerous memory of Jesus thing going on here).

Some groups practice footwashing as part of worship services. Indeed there are grounds to claim that it should be treated as an 'ordinance' (ordained by Christ) like Baptism and the Lord's Supper - and perhaps indeed like them a 'sacrament' - whatever we mean by that.

Others respond by saying that the act and practice of footwashing itself relates to the cultural context and the important thing that Jesus was teaching was the importance of the having a loving and servant heart.

I get this response but it troubles me:

Jesus did not simply teach an attittude or principle but demonstrated it in a particular act and practice. So - what does a servant heart of the footwashing type look like in practice? What actions can we point to - in our services and beyond about which we can say 'this is that' which Jesus enacted in the footwashing thing. Surely it means more than middle class politeness?

Furthermore there is the whole argument that it is the practices of our worship that shape our behaviours and beliefs so that those who practice footwashing in worship are more likely to engage in similar acts of sacrificial service and love. (I need to follow this up).

I know that some times folks today practice hand washing - I don't have the same hang ups about this and it can certainly be meaningful but I still don't know what I think, no feel, about the dirty feet thing.

What I do know is that Jesus exampled  a servant kind of love that is prepared to get close and physical in its engagement with others in a way I find uncomfortable. 

 

 

 

the poor you will always have with you

St Andrews is a great University, one of the 'best' not simply in Scotland but in the UK.

It has a very low drop out rate: http://www.studentbeans.com/student101/a/Universities/universities-with-the-lowest-drop-out-rates2610.html

It is in the top ten Universities in Scotland according to the Times best University guide 2012 - the only one from Scotland: http://lywong.hubpages.com/hub/Sunday-Times-University-Ranking-Top-10-UK-Universities

Apparently as proudly reported in the recent local paper the Courier it is also in the top ten UK Universities for producing grduates who go on to be millionaires: http://www.thesaint-online.com/2012/03/st-andrews-among-top-ten-universities-to-produce-millionaires-in-uk/

In comparisson to the above the University of the West of Scotlad where the Scottish Baptist College is locateed fares very poorly with for example a drop out rate of 23.4% in comparisson to St Andrews 1.4%.

Yet there is another statistic that is interesting. This statistic is that the ancient universities in Scotland including St Andrews are very poor at taking students from the poorest economic backgrounds in Scotland: http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/education/st-andrews-university-takes-only-13-students-from-poor-backgrounds-1-2337132

In contrast to this the University of the West of Scotland takes some 25.4% of its students from the lowest 20% of economic backgrounds (Herald).

The ancient Universities often among the best in the light of the above but poor in taking poorer students are the places where theology has traditionally been taught. They are great places to study theology - I get that having done post-graduate theology studies at Edinburgh and feel part of an ancient institution.

On the other hand I am really proud of the UWS record in taking poorer students something which explains at least in part some of its lower rankings in other tables.

In turn I would hope that this location for the Scottish Baptist College could inform our theologising and shape our understanding and practice of mission.

It seems that Jesus thought that authentic discipleship would always be among and concerned for the poor.

Baptist wish - that we be known as those who place themselves among marginalised groups of all sorts - this will probabaly not get us in any Times top ten list - but hey this was not the sort of recognition that the crucified one sought. 

 

 

On the trail of a snail...

During the month of May Paisley hosted a conference to celebrate the passing of what has been described as ‘the most famous (legal) case of all time’. In strict terms it is the Donoghue v Stevenson (1932 SC (HL) 31 case. In popular celebrated parlance it is the ‘Snail in the Bottle Case’. The conference was organised by the Renfrewshire Law centre, the University of the West of Scotland, and the Faculty of Advocates.

The story of the case as reported on the newly installed commemorative stone in Paisley sates:

On 26th August 1928, Mrs Donoghue met a friend at the Wellmeadow Cafe. Her friend brought her a bottle of ginger beer. As she enjoyed her drink, part of a decomposing snail fell out of the bottle. It is recorded that Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and a severe stomach upset as a result. As she had not bought the drink, Mrs Donoghue had no legal contract with the cafe owner. The case made on Mrs Donoghue's behalf therefore focused on whether the manufacturer and bottler of the drink, David Stevenson should be held responsible. Previously the law had declared there was no legal connection between consumer and manufacturer.

The case itself never came to trial and was finally settled out of court. Before that there was much legal debate over whether there was a case to hear. In May 1932 the House of Lords ruled there was. Lord Atkin looked to the Bible story of the Good Samaritan and the principal of loving your neighbour to help him decide. He found that just as neighbours should care for each other so should manufacturers care about the consumers of their products.

As we discussed this in the office our legal expert pointed an earlier 1990 conference (Pilgrimage to Paisley) on this case in which the Kerr Speirs, the then minister of Thomas Coates Memorial Baptist Church participated by preaching a sermon on Sunday 30^th September entitled: Who is my Neighbour?  

In this sermon Kerr cited the interesting phrase: it’s only the poor who have neighbours; the affluent have contacts.’

Reflecting further, however, on the judgement and on the parable he went on to argue that when we move from law to gospel the issue is not simply one of avoiding negligence and harm (about which the law has something to say and do) but is about showing ‘mercy’ and that such is ‘prompted neither by legal requirement nor moral duty, but by the dynamic spiritual motivation of caring love.’

The notion of a ‘sermon’ preached at a legal conference now belongs to another age but theologically reflecting on such issues and bearing witness albeit from a position of marginalisation on behalf of the marginalised remains part of the calling of the Christian community.

Sadly we had missed the adverts for the conference which was organised at least in part to promote ‘pro-bono’ legal work until it was too late or we might have pitched in with a paper.

For some further info go here: Paisley Law Centre

mmmm...can’t help but wonder if it might be an interesting thing instead of endless Christian conferences on mission, leadership, discipleship anod other worthy but often fundamentally ‘Church centred things,’ we had one on this theme of ‘who is our neighbour’ and then went out and showed mercy or (as Kerr emphasised in his sermon) went out and ‘did likewise’ as the Samaritan who Jesus held up as the paradigmatic example of the sort of love that is central to the gospel – well at least the gospel as Jesus embodied, described, and defined it.

Long live Christendom

The association of the monarchy, Britishness, Christian Religion of the Anglican sort, and useful evangelistic opportunities such as the Jubilee New Testament (useful for handing out at street parties) - demonstrate that in some expressions of popular culture the association of Church and State is very much perhaps dangerously alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We just can't get over it - or perhaps get the irony of the fact that the Jubilee spoken about in the Christian Scriptures and implicit in Luke 4 explicitly critiques much of what this cultural celebration is about!

I dislike all forms of national flags in churches as a dangerous symbolic association and dislike bible covers and editions that in some senses claim the content by association with any specific association.

 

The Dangerous Memory of Jesus

I love this phrase 'the dangerous memory of Jesus'. I think it is originally attributed to Catholic theologian Johann Baptist Metz. I have since come across it in a book by the missiologist Michael Frost but particularly in the book 'What Would Jesus Deconstruct' by John Caputo.

I love the idea. For me it is a reminder that the one who is the 'head' of the church is no vague cosmic Christ shaped by our own making but one who has the nature of Jesus of Nazareth as spoken about in the gospels and it is this living one who both gives the church example of what it is about and constantly calls it into questions as to its own claims, nature, and character as that which claims to follow him.

Following this line of though Jesus is the dangerous deconstructive 'inner voice' or 'Truth' of Christianity as Caputo puts it:

In a deconstruction, things are made to tremble by their own inner impulse, by a force that will give them no rest, that keeps forcing itself to the surface, forcing itself out, making the thing restless. Deconstruction is organized around the idea that things contain a kind of uncontainable truth, that they contain what they cannot contain. Nobody has to come along and ‘deconstruct’ things. Things are auto-deconstructed by the tendencies of their own inner truth. In a deconstruction, the ‘other’ is the one who tells the truth on the ‘same’; the other is the truth of the same, the truth that has been repressed and suppressed, omitted and marginalised, or sometimes just plain murdered, like Jesus himself, which is why Johannes Baptist Metz speaks of the ‘dangerous memory’ of the suffering of Jesus and why I describe deconstruction as a hermeneutics of the kingdom of God.

The ‘danger’ Metz describes is the deconstructive force. As soon as the ‘other’ tells the truth, as soon as the truth is out, then the beliefs or the practices, the texts, or institutions, that have been entrusted with the truth begin to tremble! Then they have to reconfigure, reorganise, regroup, reassemble in order to come to the grips with their inner tendencies – or repress them all the more mightily.

The above was influential in my own thinking during discussions which were taking place in the Baptist Union of Scotland  in late 2010 regarding what a future 'strap line' should be to promote future Union strategy when I argued for something confessional, such as  'Under the Rule of Christ'.

Sometimes people ask about that particular title 'Under the Rule of Christ' which now heads up various pieces of Baptist Union of Scotland literature. I cannot speak for others as to why it was finally adopted  but some of my own thinking was expressed in a previous blog and submitted to the National Stratey Group of the Baptist Union of Scotland. For any who care it is available here:

  Download Baptist identity, strap lines, and Jesus

All of this said - I still love the term...

Scotland the free?

One of the most significant forthcoming socio-political decisions will be the question (whatever that questions is) of Scottish independence.

Yet, with few exceptions (Honey From the Lion's Belly - a lecture by Doug Gay) it does not seem to have generated much 'evangelical' theological reflection and certainly not as much attention as other red hot topics such as same gender marriage. 

Perhaps this is right - I mean politics has nothing to do with our Christian faith has it - except of course from an early age I have heard at worst the mantra and at best the confession that Jesus is Lord of all of life.

Or perhaps it is simply I mix in Baptist circles and the free church position of the separation of church and state means that this is not an issue of concern to us - except that this separation should not be equated with non-engagement but invites engagement from a particular perspective of 'free church' and 'free state'.

Or perhaps it is simply that the issue is clear, nationalism is a bad thing - except that what is under discussion here is not whether or not we will live in a nation state but whether our choice will be for the present British nationalism or a future Scottish nationalism.

There are a whole pile of things to be teased out here and perhaps one 'service' we can offer to the wider 'society' albeit it in 'thin' form emerging from our own practices should be to create and stimulate contexts for people to think and engage in the processes of discussion about this issue, although that might presume that we are actually doing such ourselves.

Or perhaps we should be encouraging the conversation not simply to be about 'economics' but about 'ethics' - will a Scottish independent nation that upholds human rights legislation be a better form of nationalism than a British nationalism which wishes to remove the 'human' in favour of the 'national' constitution.

Do I have a bias in this...of course not...aye right