andygoodliff

Beyond 400: Questioning Some 'Myths'

In this latest post, I want to attempt to push back against some of what I believe are caricatures of the Baptist Union. (I will no doubt fail.)

Myth 1. The Baptist Union is top-down and institutional

As a minister and member of a local church, in very few ways, do I feel the Union imposes on me. I would claim that as a Baptist Union we remain a people that champion the local church and (possibly to our detriment) its liberty. Therefore most of the Union structures, in terms of Associations and those who work at Baptist House, are in the background offering support as and when needed.

I think some are making the institution bigger in their estimation than it is, partly because this serves as something which it is believed we all think is bad - institution bad, movement good. I continue to be unclear what on earth is meant by the language of 'movement' - in my mind it feels a fairly hollow and empty word. (Side note :- Behind this is perhaps the same suspicion Pete Ward has for 'solid' church and his plea to embrace 'liquid' church - it would be my contention that in a liquid society, something more solid, that anchors us, may well be the more faithful and distinctive place of the church [this certainly seems to be the argument with which Stanley Hauerwas and Gerald Schlabach critique contemporary anabaptists]).

Now I acknowledge that others don't feel this and I think the future will be making decisions about grants (in particular, but not solely) in more regional and association spaces, i.e. closer to the local.

Myth 2. Home Mission supports a fat central resource

Home Mission giving is shared fairly equally three ways - between grants to local churches, associations and the (mis-named) national resource.

The national resource share does not just go on personnel (in fact the numbers who work at Baptist House for the Union are relatively small - no more than 50 on behalf of 250,000 and this small group of teams are stretched, there is not much fat to trim), it also goes on conferences to support and resource ministers, the younger leader's forum, Baptist Union Council and the Baptist Assembly, CRB checks, supporting minsterial students, engaging in ecumenical dialogue, the settlement system, ministerial counselling service, increasing legal fees).

In addition, much of what associations do, largely in employing regional ministers, is about creating healthy churches, through pastoral support and mission enabling.

I would claim that much of the 'national resource' and associations is about encouraging missionary churches (I am adapting the Union's vision from 'disciples' to 'churches'), because missionary churches are healthy and well supported churches.

Now there is an argument to be had as we look at the future about what we do with home mission, and this is a conversation about what we think is important and where those decisions should be made.

Myth 3. The Union is a faceless institution

I would say to some degree thank goodness it feels fairly 'faceless', that feels somewhat Baptist too me. As Baptist we don't believe in figureheads. I'm glad that the Union in terms of those employed remains fairly in background to the knowledge of most local church life. The Union's communciation department works tireless to make our wider life feel less faceless - through its website, DVDs, magazines, social networking, but I fear it largely is not received well.

I think we probably feel overwhelmed by the demands of the various things we support or belong to (BMS, EA, Christian Aid, Tearfund, and x number of other charities and organisations) and unfortunately our belonging to the Union gets lost in that - its just another thing we support - rather than being something that is life-giving to our Baptist identity and mission in the local church. Why is this? I wonder partly again because it doesn't appear exciting enough - we want entertainment rather than the hard work of investing and relating to what appear as complex organisations, which work for the common good. We have succumbed to the post-institutionalism of our age, we have embraced it in the language of freedom (misconceived), because we are suspicious of power and authority and have a false nostalgic view of the early church.

I would also want to say that as local churches and associations we are the Union, there is no Union outside of us and if it feels like one has been created that is in part because we been indifferent to participating in our wider Baptist life.

No Union structures can solve the problem that lots of us are not that bothered about relating whether locally or wider. This requires a cultural change, rooted in a renewed theology of associating.

 

 

Baptist Quarterly Online

Every article from the Baptist Quarterly 1922-2000 is now available to download here.

As we continue to work towards seeing the future beyond400 we might want to listen to the past. Here's a small number that maybe helpful and/or interesting.

'The Baptist Doctrine of the Church' (1948)

W. M. S. West, 'Baptists and the Future' (1967)

L. G. Champion, 'Evanglelical Calvinism and the Structures of Baptist Church Life' (1981)

J. H. Y. Briggs, 'Evangelical Ecumenism: The Amalgamation of General and Particular Baptists in 1891'

Nigel Wright, 'Koinonia and Baptist Ecclesiology: Self-Critical Reflections from Historical and Systematic Perspectives' (1984)

Stephen Copson, 'Renewing Associations' (2000)

Peter Shepherd, 'The Baptist Union's Ministerial Settlement Scheme and Sustentation Scheme' (2000)

Beyond 400: Reflections halfway through

After a short interlude from whether Baptists have a future, here are some further reflections on what is being offered.

We are halfway through the beyond400 conversation - hopefully there is enough energy and passion to persist to the end. I know some are finding it hard to keep pace with the voices coming possibly too quickly (this is partly the intention to finish in time for the Baptist Assembly).

1. There are some common themes and words to each of the voices and subsequent conversations, as is perhaps to be expected.

2. While there are a number who are regularly commenting, its good to see that new voices are being added.

3. I would suggest the beyond400 conversation is exploring two questions.

    What is it for us to be local baptist churches in the future?

    What is it for us to be local churches in relationships - in union - with one another in the future?

It seems to me it is important we hold both questions together; we need to be answering both. So to be a local baptist church in the future is to be in relationship with other baptist churches; to be a union of churches is to re-emphsise the participation of the local in whatever structures are created.

4. Courage. The word has appeared twice now (from Neil and Jane). John Colwell in The Rhythm of Doctrine (Paternoster, 2007) says following Jesus requires fortitude which is the persistence and constancy of courage. We need more than courage in this moment, we need to nurture courage as a virtue, that shapes the character of our communities (to borrow some Hauerwasian language) There are some who are doubting that the conversation will display courage. I am hopeful that this will be found wanting, although what it might mean to be courageous in this moment, whatever is offered, will no doubt to some not look like courage to them - such is the baptist lot!

Where does courage come from? I don't think its just about being radical. Courage, as a Christian virtue, is to face the possibility of our death, as churches, associations and as a union and not to seek to avoid it for our self-survival or in ways that lead us to be unfaithful to our being gospel people. Courage to persevere and not be thrown off course by faddism (see Ian Stackhouse's The Gospel-Driven Church, Paternoster, 2004 and John Colwell, Living the Christian Story, T & T Clark, 2001).

5. Another observation is that a number of those engaged in the beyond400 conversation have been shaped by the two Alans (Hirsch and Roxbourgh) and one Mike (Frost) and their growing number of books on a missional church. I confess my engagement with these guys is limited - a greater familiarity with their work would perhaps be helpful in order that we can hear what is being said by some within our Baptist family.

My simple understanding suggests some are wanting missiology to drive ecclesiology and are asking the rest of us where's mission? So there is a suspicion of structures and institution because this is believed to inhibit mission.

While others are wanting ecclesiology to come alongside or before missiology and are asking the former, where's church? So there is a suspicion of a potential 'whateverism' about church (and I think probably also theology) which does not see the church as anything more than local micro communities.

Both want to say that their position is being driven by christology. The two extremes are I think unhelpful and we need a greater conversation between missiology and ecclesiology, without wanting to lose the importance of either.

6. We need more concrete and particular ways forward. The majority of the posts and subsequent conversations have wanted to highlight the importance of listening, being prophetic, flying, risk-taking, dreaming, etc but we have not yet generally translated that into practice - what might the bird, ship, bride, etc look like?

7. I'm glad that for most of us being baptist has a future and something to offer the wider church and the world.

Book Review: Learning To Speak Christian | War and the American Difference

Stanley Hauerwas, Learning To Speak Christian (SCM, 2011 published in the United States as Working With Words, Cascade, 2011)

Stanley Hauerwas, War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity (Brazos, 2011 / SPCK, 2012)

At nearly 72, Stanley Hauerwas is still writing and writing a lot. There are thirty-three essays in these two latest books.

Hauerwas suggests Learning To Speak Christian is a 'kitchen sink' type book, meaning it is a collection of essays, sermons and other bits, rather than a sustained chapter by chapter argument developing (so in that regard like lots of his books!). Hauerwas sees the connections between the essays to be around seeing 'theology as work and work with words'. The book is divided into three sections Learning Christian: To See and To Speak; The Language of Love: From Death to Life; and Habits of Speech Exemplified: Some Teachers. As with every Hauerwas book there is much to enjoy and much to be challenged by. Two chapters stand out for me: the address 'Speaking Christian' is wonderful exploration of the task of ministry as teaching people to speak Christian. The chapter 'Why did Jesus have to die?' originated as a lecture to young people on the gospel and makes helpful (and challenging) reading for those engaged in youth ministry of some kind or another.

War and the American Difference is a book, which offers some of Hauerwas' most developed discussion of war and violence, especially in the context of America. The first section demonstrates how closely war is embedded in American history, experience and identity. The second section includes his appeal (co-written with Enda McDonagh) and reflections to abolish war, a discussion of sacrifice in the context of war, and essays on C. S. Lewis and Martin Luther King. The final section explores the role of the church in terms of justice (comparing Daniel Bell and Nicholas Wolterstoff), Pentecost as a language of peace (engaging with Jonathan Sacks and Herbert McCabe - I heard Hauerwas deliver this Amensty International 2008 lecture in Oxford - much easier to follow on paper than at the time!), the common good, the future of parish ministry (be interesting to offer some Baptist reflections on this) and mission (this paper includes a response to Nathan Kerr's criticisms of Hauerwas' ecclesiology).  

The book hangs together much better than Learning to Speak Christian, which makes it an easier and more satisfying read - like Hauerwas' collections of essays on The State of the University. He takes the reader on a journey around a common theme approaching it from different angles. I think this may well become one of Hauerwas' important books. Hauerwas certainly seems to be moving towards an ecclesiology more in engagement than in separation, that is, I wonder if he is now exploring more, as Yoder did, what it means for the church to be for the nations and not just against the nations (the title of his 1985 book). The oft-made claim of sectarianism just won't stick now (not that I think it ever really did).  Hauerwas' friends and students I think ground his work in the everyday life of being church (Sam Wells is the exemplar of this) in ways that answer the question of what does this look like.

I think everyone should read Hauerwas and both these new books give examples of why.