|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Has the Evangelical Alliance shot itself in the foot?
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[QUOTE] I've been told on the Ship that the CofE is becoming congregational in practice
So they are finally seeing the One True Light to Church Governance (joke!).
Just as some Baptists are moving away from it:
read this.
True - and perhaps BUGB should take a closer look at such congregations where the ability of members to act as the priesthood of all believers is being impaired by leaders.
FWIW I don't agree with the author's views that elder of "leader" driven ministry can be held with our traditional approach. They are vastly different.
The whole concept of "leaders" in Baptist churches is a modern conceit. Scripture knows little of it - and what there is, is more in the context of servanthood and following an example, rather than leading a crowd. If you don't like the rules, don't sign up to the package ....
I'd humbly suggest that a model where everyone is involved - irrespective of age, sex, background, ethnicity, or whatever - remains as radically counter cultural as it has ever been. Why change it when you don't need to?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That was a very interesting link, but what I took from it was that some churches are coming into the Baptist movement with their somewhat different expectations of church leadership structures already formed. It's not that they're deliberately trying to subvert Baptist ways.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Perhaps BUGB should take a closer look at such congregations where the ability of members to act as the priesthood of all believers is being impaired by leaders.
Actually I was invited to Didcot about 8 years ago to take part in a small group discussion about precisely that, not to do just with leadership in churches coming from different cultures but also with those in the charismatic tradition.
Problem was, although "everyone knows" that proper Baptist churches are Congregationalist, it isn't written down in the Declaration of Principle. It is in the Model Trust Deeds for church buildings, but many newer churches don't have their own buildings (and no-one, in any case, has to have their building vested in a Baptist trust corporation anyway).
So there was little that could be done "officially" ... which, much as I disagree with this kind of strong leadership, may be the "right answer" if we believe in the autonomy of local churches to run their affairs.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Could you politely suggest to inquiring churches of this type that some other institutional body would be a better fit for them than the BUGB? Why do they want to align themselves with the BU anyway?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That's a very good question.
In some cases, churches with a strong "leadership" ethos are historical Baptist churches which have been influenced by trends in the charismatic movement. Indeed, they may have become affiliated to one of the "new church" groupings such as New Frontiers while still remaining part of BUGB. I do know of at least one quite high-profile case where they were basically told that they had to choose one or the other ... and left the BU.
I have known of other churches, certainly in London, made up of folk from (say) Africa who want to join a denomination so they can become "officially registered" and/or claim some kind of kudos by being a "proper church". This often reflects a different legal status for unincorporated associations in their home countries. I suspect that BUGB, as a fellowship of associated churches rather than a tightly-regulated denomination, is a more appealing choice than (say) the Methodists. But I agree that, in some cases at least, such churches were "allowed in" without sufficient socialising into, and explanation of, British Baptist culture. Indeed, it has been said that the "bar was set too low" in a desire to see Baptist numbers rise than fall, but that may be a cheap jibe.
Finally, and most tricky, are non-British congregations composed of folk who are Baptists "back in their old country" where Baptist polity is much less Congregationalist. One cannot simply override their own tradition or say, "You are not real Baptists"; nor can they be excluded as this would cause real pain! Here I think the only solution is a lengthy discussion and learning process.
FWIW I very much agree with EM's post above.
[ 04. June 2014, 06:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. I agree that, in some cases at least, such churches were "allowed in" without sufficient socialising into, and explanation of, British Baptist culture. Indeed, it has been said that the "bar was set too low" in a desire to see Baptist numbers rise than fall, but that may be a cheap jibe.
2. Finally, and most tricky, are non-British congregations composed of folk who are Baptists "back in their old country" where Baptist polity is much less Congregationalist. One cannot simply override their own tradition or say, "You are not real Baptists"; nor can they be excluded as this would cause real pain! Here I think the only solution is a lengthy discussion and learning process.
3. FWIW I very much agree with EM's post above.
1. The bar was (and is) being set way too low. It needs to be said.
Many of these new churches are very conservative in theology and anti SSM: they have a big constituency in London and a big clout which they won't be afraid to use. They can go out as quickly as they came in.
2. True but accommodation happens when both sides move. This is England and our culture, although thankfully mixed, is still one that is in the mainstream recognisably distinct. Why dump our history on the altar of growth?
3. Thanks - glad I'm on the mark for once
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Maybe mainstream Baptists will have to draw a line in the sand at some point. If being anti-SSM really is a problem now it's surely best if church leaders know so they can make alternative plans from the beginning, rather than joining the BUGB and then having to leave under a cloud at some later point.
As for the Methodists, I've never heard of any 'BME' congregation that's openly contradicted Methodist culture as the denominational leadership understands it. Methodists today tend to avoid conflict and strongly evangelical positions, and this is probably also true for BME congregations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
It's interesting that this term is now something for people to fight over. Is there any other word or phrase in British Christianity quite like it? No one argues about who has the theological right to be called MOTR, liberal, Catholic, etc.!
I've heard it argued by at least one historian (I forget who) that the evangelical propensity to define is one of the defining marks of evangelicalism ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I think it originates in the historic evangelical assumption that discerning God's will is both relatively 'easy' and incredibly important. Historically evangelicals have tended to believe that any sincere individual can discern God's will from the Bible under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Intermediaries were unnecessary. So if you start from that assumption, it can be hard to process situations where equally sincere individuals claiming to work under the guidance of the Holy Spirit disagree.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
