Dynamic Authority Amongst Baptists (?)

This post emerges from a comment I made in the Council discussion of the Faith & Unity report 'Knowing What We Believe'.

Where does authority lie within the Baptist Union? Is it with the Union's Trustees? Is it the Senior Management Team (the general secretary and general manager, the heads of the departments of ministry, mission, faith and unity, communications, finance)? It is with the Council Executives (Ministry, Mission, Faith & Unity) Is it with Council? Does it lie with Regional Ministers who are Team Leaders of their associations? Is it with Assembly or it is with the local church? Does it lie in part with our College Principals and Tutors as they shape and form generation after generation of Ministers? My answer to this question is to agree with a suggestion of Paul Fiddes that Baptists have 'a dynamic view of authority in the community, in which oversight flows to and fro between the personal and the communal' (Tracks and Traces, 2003, 87).

At its best authority and oversight for Baptists flows between the different groups ... never residing in one alone.  Discernment of the mind of Christ comes from listening to these broad range of voices.  At moments some voices will have more weight than others.  At moments some groups will take a lead, but they will not seek to act independently, but listen to the responses of others.  In the document On the Way of Trust (written by the Principals of the four English colleges in membership with the Baptist Union of Great Britain in 1997) they write that 'at their best, committees and councils, like church meetings, are bodies which corporately listen to the voice of Christ ... Strength of leadership rests not on the office persons hold, nor on the gift of personality they have, but on the quality of their service and the levels of trust nurtured and articulated within the community which recognises and respects them'.

Authority is dynamic, sometimes resting with the Trustees, sometimes with Council and sometimes with the other groups referred to above. No one group can claim sole authority. This is all dependent on a theology of trust between the different groups and constant requirement to corporately listen to each other.

Comments

[Andrew]

Thanks for your perspective on this. In wrestling with the ways that Baptists may engage the wider tradition of the church (as authoritative), I think the more dynamic view is both practical and true to the baptist / free church vision. Thanks for sharing this.

[Simon Jones]

This is a helpful post. But I think the one thing it misses out is how authority is received by the baptist family. It's okay to say it resides dynamically in a number of places but if no one's paying attention, that authority is not worth much!

I wonder too whether each of the bodies you identify thinks and speaks authoritatively only on behalf of those who put them there or to whom they are accountable but not for anyone else.

For authority to be received, we need to put ourselves under it. I'm not sure that many baptists do that and they watch what happens at council or the assembly or even within their own association structures with a a benign indifference. But were you to tell them that what Council talks about has a bearing on their lives, they'd roll their eyes and say 'yeah, right' and get on with their lives as though Council didn't exist.

[andy goodliff]

Thanks Andrew and Simon for your comments. Simon I hear your point and recognise it. We need a revolution of thinking that says yes to local church, but also yes to our being united together and subject to one another. I have a strong feeling that Council matters only really to those on it or on fringes of it ... this is sad and reflects the baptist reluctance or indifference to think beyond what is immediate in front of them (largely perhaps a problem that those accredited ministers of the union, have little time for the union themselves)

[Simon Jones]

I think you're absolutely right, Andy. And I don't know what the answer is. But we have large numbers of members oif our church who aren't really prepared to be subject to one another in any meaningful, discipleship way. All our dealings both within and beyond the churches are business dealings rather than relational ones. You're right that we need a revolution. Good to see McClendon in your next post!