Politurgy

Not the Primary thing but the Primal thing

Discussion and debates abound concerning whether mission or discipleship or ecclesiology should have the primacy as we in the Church in the West try and work out what it means to bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ...

Frost and Hirsch among others argue that in our post-Christian, Christendom (etc) context we need to allow missiology to take priority over ecclesiology. Sneaking along quickly on the outside of this debate seeking ascendency at the present is discipleship as the primary idea.

As these three compete in a variety of discourses to pass the finishing line as the 'first' a lot of time and attention is given to each of them and in turn their relationship to one another. Of that relationship I would say that it is clearly necessary and complex and linear hierarchical gradings of significance are probably unhelpful.

I also think that for the sake of mission, discipleship, and the church we need to stop focussing on them because I think that they are the outcomes not the precurrsors of something more primal - a dynamic relationship with the living Christ whose name is Jesus. Oh to be sure we can say that this demonstrates that mission (missio Dei) proceeded the coming of Jesus but that is like saying God preceeded the coming of Jesus - it is an ontological sort of statement that does not really get us anywhere when we ask about what that now means for the practice of the Christian Church.

Christian mission, discipleship, and the church are outcpomes of that which is not simply primary - but primal - dynamic relationship with the living Christ whose name is Jesus. This is the one to whom we need to constantly turn as in the presence of the Spirit we seek to discern what he is saying to us in relation to the Scripture so that in our practices as disciples we can say 'this is that' which we read in the Sciptures and a foretaste now of the kingdom yet still to full come then. So connected we can engage together (church) in the lifestyle (discipleship) that enables us to bear faithful witness (mission) to Jesus Christ.

Such connecting and discerning is something that we are not very good at, we don't find it easy, it is demanding and time consuming, it involves the blood and tears of mutual appreciation, listening, service and sacrifice. So instead to bring us life we focus on the other things mission, discipleship, and church and talk much about them without in the long term necessarily seeing things change. Why? - because we are focussing on the outcomes rather than the source -or to be a bit more biblical in my metaphors - we are focussing on the fruit that we are trying to produce through our own sheer effort rather than the vine who lifes it in us.

I am concerned for mission, discipleship, and the church - because of that I think we need to learn and risk connection with the much more dangerously primal - the living Christ whose name is Jesus.

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...

 

Baptists Identity and A View From the South

Independence and Baptist Identity is not simply a Scottish issue and the sort of Baptist conversations I am advocating would welcome perspectives of folks from outside Scotland and outside Baptist circles - that is part of the nature of such conversations.

So here is a perspective from the South:

http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/11/scottish-independence-baptists-and-politics.html

 

 

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. 

 

denominations other institutions, loyal radicals and Jesus

The comment is often made that people have no interest in denominations any more. If the comment means that people outside of the church have no interest that is probably true in the same way that they don't have any interest in many of our newer forms of doing things either. If it refers to people inside the church the statement may well or not be true.

I do think it an interesting comment. It is particularly interesting when put by people who themselves in preference to traditional denominations belong to new groupings and networks. For just as a denomination is a gathering around 'a shared something' so are such newer groupings. In turn various sociological perspectives demonstrate (whether they be social movement theory or more performance based ideas around 'communitas' as recently discussed by Frost and Hirsch)that nearly all groupings have to take on some structured form in to maintain their life together.

To be sure in newer groupings or movements the organisational structure may be lighter or more relational rather than the committee structure of older institutions. On the other side unlike these traditional institutions in new grouping where power lies and how it is exercised and by whom may be more hidden and accordingly less open to question and critique. Issues of hierarchy exist in all all groupings old and new.

I mention the above to indicate that I am suspicious of all institutions whether they be new or old. In my suspicion I look at the reasons why such groupings exist - what they gather around...a charismatic leader, a creed or statement of faith, a set of shared values, a task, or the goal of simply being relational and so on. This is important because this indicates what some have referred to as the 'inner voice' of an institution - the thing that can always push it back to being a movement.

In my own grouping because strictly speaking Baptists in Scotland are not a denomination at the centre is not actually relationality (although we want to be intentionally relational) nor a creed (although we want to be creatively rooted) not even mission (although we want to be unashamedly missional) nor even the Declaration of Principle - but rather at the centre is the one to whom all this points and gets its direction and life - the person of Jesus Christ as borne witness to in the Scriptures. It is to his presence, example and guidance we ever look to deconstruct and reconstruct us in his image. It is because he is central and our understanding of what this means for our way of being the church and bearing faithful witness to him that I am a loyal radical to the 'baptist' way of things as it ever seeks to be a movement.

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.

'wee scottish baptist voices'

This blog post announces the start of a project called 'wee scottish baptist voices'.

Down in the Baptist Union of Great Britain as far as I understand it some bloggers set up a site to get 40 baptist voices to share their views and visions regarding the future of the Baptist Union of Great Britain  http://www.beyond400.net/.

Well there have not been Baptists in Scotland for as long as 400 hundred years but I thought between now and the October Assembly of the Baptist Union of Scotland I would host occassional posts called 'wee scottish baptist voices'. So with a scandalous borrowing and improvisation of the idea from the South I have invited a number of 'guests' to blog articles here now and again about their views, opinions, hopes and dreams about present and future church life in Scotland from a 'baptist' perspective.

The brief is wide and the opinions will be there own on topics of their interest and concern and contributors will not necessarily agree with my views or those of other contributors. What they have in common is some committment to historic or ideological 'baptist' convictions (small b deliberate) and that they are presently throwing in their lot with us here in Scotland (although maybe we can get some BUGB bloggers to comment on what they read).

This is not an official Baptist Union of Scotland project who have their own facebook site and blogs you can get on to http://www.scottishbaptist.org.uk/ and it should not be reagrded as a substitute but a stimulus to sitting down with others to have, food, drink, communion, and conversation.

While this wee project is going on I will continue to offer different posts etc. on a whole range of stuff and nonsense.