Two reflections from November's BU Council.
First, a question what would be different if associations no longer existed? While some associations have an identity and a number of people and churches participating, for many local churches how do they really engage with their association? Do they identify themselves as belonging to their association - does this form part of their identity?
Second, where does the leadership of the Baptist Union lie? There was a suggestion that the leadership of the Union consisted of the Senior Management Team (the heads of the different departments at Baptist House - mission, ministry, faith and unity, finance, communications general secretary) and the Regional Minister Team Leaders. It is my view that the leadership of the BU is much more complex with leadership arising and emerging from those already mentioned, but in addition, the Trustees, some theologians (e.g. Paul Fiddes, Nigel Wright, John Colwell), Council itself. There is a dynamic view of leadership, with it flowing from and to different groups of people (see Paul Fiddes chapter on authority in Tracks and Traces, Paternoster, 2003).
Neil Brighton has offered some thoughts of his own, here.
It was a good couple of days, marked by the last time Sean will be at Council for the forseeable future and the last time I"ll see him, as he heads of to Melbourne in January. Paul Fiddes was on top form in the evenings.
Hi Andy,
I'm not sure if your second question makes sense. If the BU genuinely is simply the union, participation and association of the churches, then is not the leadership of the Union the same as the leadership of the churches?
Perhaps we're talking past each other, or perhaps I'm simply being idealistic? But does the Union really have leadership, in that sense?
Posted by: graham | November 13, 2008 at 08:23 PM
Hey Andy,
I think your first question could be asked from the opposite end, namely what would be different if the Union didn't exist?
Yes, we'd have to find new ways of managing an acredited list, home mission and the pension fund, but doesn't relating happen better at local rather than national level?
I think I'm a baptist but I'm not sure I gave BU Council a thought over the past few days, only knowing it was meeting because Baptist bloggers kept reminding me it was Sean's last one as moderator. I haven't a clue what was on the agenda, no one canvassed my views on any of the subjects being discussed. At least the LBA keeps me posted on what discussions are going on within the association.
With a number of the regional associations being larger than the national unions of Wales, Scotland and Ireland - London, for example, having more than twice the number of churches and a considerably bigger budget than Scotland - it raises the question where BUGB fits in. How about BUGB mutating into FBB and not having a policy role at all?
Posted by: simon jones | November 17, 2008 at 09:02 AM
Simon - i think you're right and i think there are some big questions for both the Union and associations to be asking. I asked the way I did, because it seems in some associations, outside of the Regional Ministers (who do a fantastic job), the involvement of local church is limited to even non-existent. This may be a result of some associations becoming bigger as a result of the changes at the end of the 1990s that make it difficult, if not sometimes, impossible. Baptist identity has become so local, that there is very little wider ecclesial expression. this is something we should, in my opinion, be very concerned about.
Posted by: andy goodliff | November 17, 2008 at 08:56 PM