Politurgy

Baptism the awkward practice

What to do, what to do with the practice of baptism? frequently people think that believers's (or should that be believers') baptism is the distinguishing mark of 'Baptist' churches. This is not the case. On the one hand many other groups baptise believers and on the other for Baptists baptism is related to the more fundamental question of the nature of the Church as a believers or gathered or discipling community.

In many conversations about mission and 'missional communities' whereas the Lord's Supper seems to be 'managed' under the wider idea of hospitality and fellowship meals 'baptism' seems a bit awkward. It seems to divide or exclude rather than include and therefore does not sit as comfortably either with ecumenical sensibilities or a missional intent.

In reading material about 'Christian communities' and 'missional communities' I have often noted that while appealing to NT material relating to the church such writing either avoids going the full way to identify their notion of 'community' with church or if they do omits any reference to the practice of 'baptism' in relation to those communities.

One way around this awkwardness is to seperate the practice of baptism from our understanding of the church. This is done by emphasisng the 'individual' and 'personal' nature of baptism as a personal act of obedience more related to ones own personal salvation than to ones now belonging to the new people priesthood/holy nation etc. which in the NT is expressed in that names as church.

I am not convinced that move to the essentially individualistic nature of baptism separating the practice from the 'being added to their number' bit is a valid biblical/theological move. I suggest it owes more toan individualistic reading of the Scripture and understanding of salvation that cuts against rathher than aids the concern that people have for any form of 'community'. Or to put that a bit differently people want to stress the need for 'community' (a vague concept) but remove such ideas from one of the practices which in the NT defines specifically Christian community.

Here I am not really concerned for the arguments of ordinance over and against sacrament and I am happy to live with the idea that baptism is both at least a sign of welcoming grace as much as a sign of outward committment and that what it means for each at the moment of the event may vary. Rather, I am concerned as to how it is now regarded as fitting in to our current talk on Church, Christian communities, missional communities.

Going a bit further while I find it a anachronistic to ntalk about NT churches as 'missional communities' I am sure that we would want to argue that they were in the sense of seeking from a minority position and non-Christendom position to share the faith. Yet, they stressed the importance of baptism. If this is the case at least not wrestling with this issue if not emphasisng the place of baptism in coming to be part of the new people of Jesus may be hindering rather than helping our 'mission'.

Baptism is awkward - I would prefer we wrestled with it, however, than ignored it while claiming NT warrant for our other practices of 'mission' and 'community' and all that stuff.

 

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.

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

 

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. 

 

 

 

Who is worship for?

One of the couses I indulge in is on 'worship'. One of the recommended books and indeed one which has formed the focus of the small anabaptist reading group I host is called called Worship and Mission After Christendom by the Mennonite writers Alan and Eleanor Kreider. Non Mennonites need not worry because the book has a lot to say beyond that particular context although paradoxically one of my critiques would be that they should have followed through some of their convictions more fully rather than try and make the book have a wider 'appeal'.

The book is 'dense' not in the sense of being hard to read but in the sense of having a lot of detail and content. 

One of the things that writers invite readers to consider is 'who' and 'what' are  worship services for. Oh I know the answer 'to glorify God' but what does that actually mean?

In practice it seems to me that that for many of us in the 'evangelical' constituency we still see our sunday services as a prime for of 'outreach' That is we shape and design them to be attractive to the 'visitor'. For bigger churches they are the 'shop window' on all their activities the main drawing point and attendance or not at these services is one measure or not of success. As a consequence of this attention sometimes much is given to making the services 'attractive' in terms of music, audio visual presentations, preaching etc. etc.

To express the above differently the idea is that 'if we build it they will come'. Couple of responses to this: except for a few places 'they are not coming' and is this what worship services are meant to be about.

Kreider and Kreider cut against this grain somewhat arguing that worship services should really be geared to helping form believers into the type of people that God wants them to be through acts and activities which remind them of and draw them ever into relationship with God as he has made himself known in the person of Jesus Christ. The somewhat older language  that they use is to say that worship services should be for 'the glorification of God and the sanctification of human beings'. Where is the mission in all of this? Well not through Sunday services but through the transformed lives of the followers of Jesus as they go about their business.

Without denying that I know of people who come to Christ through attending attractive worship services I think that Kreider and Kreider make some very interesting and compelling points on this issue - or in more contemporary mission speak they are arguing against an attractional model of mission (make it really good and they will come because we are offering something appealing) to an incarnational model in the sense of go and live it now amonf folk who actuall don't reall care how attractive you make it because they will not come and don't care.

To be sure it can be argued that it can be a both/and - but if so where is the forming in alternative congregational life taking place - in home groups it is argued - okay then why do we need to bother with the big thing because as neither one thing or the other it is no very good at either forming disciples or making new ones.

What about the big churches that seem to be doing well in this regard - what if - they are the exception rather than the rule or the final throes of an old christendom model that is coming to an end rather than the pattern we should be following.