baptist ecclesiology

8/12/2019 Baptist Ecclesiology

1/8

[Ecdesiology 1.3 (2005) 87-100]DOl: 10.1177/1744136605052782

rticle Review and Response

aptist EcdesiologyD VID C RTER and P UL FIDDESPaul Fiddes, Tracks and Traces Baptist Identity in Church andTheology (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003). xvi + 305 pp. 24.99.ISBN 1-84227-120-2 (pbk).T bis book may prove to be of considerable significance for tbe future ofecumenical dialogue in ecdesiology between Baptists (as well as otbercburcbes of independent polity) and those wbo espouse an episcopal-

synodical, episcopal-Petrine or connexional ecdesiology. In ecumenical meetings,one is offen reminded tbat Baptists ascribe no ecclesiological status to interm ediatebodies or, indeed, to national or international ones above tbe level of tbe gatheredlocal cburcb. Baptists confess tbat they belong to tbe Universal Churcb, but regardit as existing out of tbe communion of all local churches, understood as gatheredcovenanted congregations, and involving no m andatory structures assucb. Baptistsare always careful to remind others tbat tbe Baptist Union does not understanditself as a cburcb in tbe sense in wbicb tbe Cburcb of England or tbe MetbodistCburcb of Great Britain do so; tbe B aptist Un ion is voluntary association of manylocal cburches, all of wbicb retain tbe sovereign right, under tbe lordsbip of tberisen Cbrist witb wbom tbey are directly in covenant in response to His gatberingof tbem , to orde r all their affairs including tbe calling of pastor.

In tbis book, one of the most creative pieces of ecclesiological writing inrecent years, tbe au tbor. Principal of Regent s Park College, Oxford, opens upimportant perspectives tbat may belp, at least over tbe long term, to transcendtbe gap between tbe independent tradition and the otber major ecclesiologicaltraditions mentioned above; consideration of bis theses sbould surely feature intbe developing dialogue between tbe Baptist Union and the Church of Englandand in otber Baptist ecumenical dialogues. Fiddes shares with the late Jean-MarieTillard tbe quality of loyalty to bis own ecclesial tradition held in tandem with a


2/8

88 cclesiologythe pastoral office. He proposes im po rtan t reconciling insights on the question ofChristian initiation which has so long divided p aedob aptist from 'believers' baptistchurches. He pleads for a m utual recognition of alternative processes of initiation,starting from the earliest initiation of an infant into the believing community,whether this be done by dedication or by infant baptism. He offers an originalessay on eucha ristic ecclesiology from a Baptist perspective in which he teases o utthe relationship between the three related, yet distinct uses of the term 'body ofChrist' in the New Testament as referring, firstly, to the crucified and risen bodyof the Lord, next to the body of the Church and finally to the eucharistic bodyof Christ. He relates all three to the inner trinitaria n mo vem ents of love betweenthe three pe rsons of the blessed Trinity, com m enting: 'Within these interweavingrelations and ac tions (perichoresis) there is, in this eternal dance of l o v e. .. there isroom for created beings to move and to dwell.'

so ne would expect, he has an irenic chapter on baptism , relating that sacramentto creation as well as to redemption. He calls on his fellow Baptists to recognizethe truth in the paedobaptist emphasis upon prevenient grace in 'infant' baptism,balancing this with an emph asis upon the supremely personal and relational natureof baptism which he feels is more fully expressed and expressable in believers'baptism. One wonders, however, how far he ignores the fact that the relationshipof parents with babies and toddlers is still supremely personal despite the child'slack ofafull vocabulary for response He is right, however, to stress that Christianinitiation is a ontinuingprocess. There is a profoun d sense in which th e Christianlife is nothing other than a search to live out the full implications of our baptism.Fiddes recognizes that, in a state of division, separated churches have distorted thefull doctrine of bap tism in differing ways; Rom an Catholics by an excessive and attimes almost exclusive emphasis upon it as effecting remission of sin. Baptists inusing it as a bo und ary marker for pu rposes of separation.

Fiddes writes from within the context of a vibrant trinitarian theology. Heemphasizes that Christians are not just used by God as instrum ents; they are takenup into God's very life. 'As we participate in the movement of sending within God,we are assumed into the relationship between the Father and the Son and discoverthe movement of the Spirit opening up new possibilities for life and service'. Heasserts that God goes out of God's own self in order to bring creatures into God,that mission is the being of the Church because it is the being of God and thatmission is above all relational.

This trinitarian theology thus allows him to present the Baptist understanding


3/8

ptist cclesiology 89ecclesiological emphases in a way that enables their reception and adaptationwithin the ongoing common search for an all-emhracing ecclesiology that cando justice to the positive emphases of all four ecclesiological strands mentionedahove. The non-Baptist reader is disabused of any illusions he or she might haveconcerning the excessively voluntaristic or isolationist aspects of the Baptistunderstanding of the local church. Fiddes, in his first two chapters, emphasizesthat the initial covenant between the members of a Baptist church always relatesto the prio r gathering of th e people by Christ and to the eternal covenant in whichGod elects to be in fellowship with himself with the ma n Ch rist Jesus and throu ghHim with all humanity. Subsequently, Fiddes emphasizes that the local church,though competent to discern the mind of Christ for itself needs the resourcesof others in its wider mission. There is an inherent and necessary orientationto the whole mission of Cod and to the universal Church, even if these are notseen as involving the structures traditional to the catholic churches. Perhaps thekey que stion in ecumenical ecclesiology across the catholic /Pro testan t divideis whether a pneumatology can be affirmed which sees the Holy Spirit as activeboth through the structures underpinned by the historic episcopal succession andthrough those of churches formed as a result offresh outpourings of the Spiritwhich, nevertheless, prove their authenticity in faithfulness to the trinitarian giftof ecclesial life.

Fiddes relates his fundamental understanding of authority to his concept ofrevelation. Revelation is the self-unveiling of Cod s very self to us, the free offer ofdivine Being and life, a gift em bodied in Jesus Christ. God is no t telling us w hat todo b ut drawing us into a network of relationships . Final auth ority therefore lies ina person an d obedience has all the quality of an adven ture since personal relationsare open ended . Fiddes later relates this to the risk that God takes in crea tion. Hedisagrees with the traditional Orthodox view of the inherent indivisibility of theone Church on the grou nds that God takes precisely this risk in his calling of peop leof free will who th us necessarily have the ability to disobey or perform imperfectlyas well as the ability to fulfil the divine will. He argues , it is an aspect of the divinehum ility ... to allow the Church to be divided; and it is a dimen sion of God sexperience of the Cross . This does not, of cou rse, negate Christ s will and prayerfor unity. He summarizes the Baptist view of the ecumenical vocation, a mixtureof realism about broken communion and determination to overcome the scandalof division .

For Baptists, the three sources of authority are Christ, the Bible and the church


4/8

90 Ecclesiologyhas discerned the will of Christ in their very choice of him or her. The pastor isone who is discerned as having the necessary gifts and graces, who comes with afuller training and awareness of the wider church than is the case with the vasmajority of church members. Above all, the pastor has the authority of his or herquality of commitment and service. Fiddes argues that Baptists hold a dynamicview of authority in which oversight flows to and fro between the personal and thecom munal. This, initself is an interesting gloss on the Lima definition ofepiscopIt surely coheres with a balanced understanding of Church as koinonia in whichthere is mutual respect and listening on the part of the people of Cod and theipastors. Fiddes, like the authors of the Gift of Authority is concerned for a righunderstanding and reception of authority within the Church. Is it perhaps thevocation of Baptists and others in the inde penden t tradition to challenge those ous with more heavily structura l ecclesiologies to consider the value of light touchapproach to wider episcopeand koinonia which more fully respects and enhancthe role ofthebasic local congregation? Ife chbishop in the catholic tradition hadthe duty of safeguarding the traditions ofhislocal church and sharing them to theenrichment of the wider church, does not each pastor and church meeting in theindependent tradition have a similar responsibility?

He argues that, in the Church, true authority derives neither by delegationfrom above, through a hierarchy, nor from below, through the people. Rather, iresults from discernment just as the authority of Jesus, accepted by his discipleand others, did. One can argue that Fiddes s understanding of the partnership opastor and church meeting has enough in common with the Catholic concept oth econspiratiobetween the hierarchy and theconsensusi elium o provide for interesting dialogue. For there to be true Christian authority and developmenthere must surelybea culture of com mu nion in which the pastors and people of theChurch practise a mutually humble submission, the people listening to the voicof those who come to them from and with the witness and memory of the wideChurch , the pastors listening to the w itness of the faithful disciples in the placto which they are appointed and invited. Fiddes argues that all that the ministedoes is done from the perspective of the wider Church, thus widening the visionof the local scene. Fiddes concludes his chapter with an analysis of the servannature of ministry and the nature of ordination as the culmination of discerningprocess (there are echoes here of the Methodist tradition of ministerial probatioand of Paul Bradshaw s analysis of a strand of early Christian unders tand ing oord inatio n) and a mom ent of special encoun ter with the triune C od . .. a ke


5/8

ptist cclesiology 91his apparently ontological u nderstan ding of m inistry would he generally acceptedwithin his communion.

Turning to Fiddes's chapter on the Church's ecumenical calling, one findsmany promising openings for fruitful dialogue, particularly between Baptists andchurches of'catholic' order. Fiddes is insistent on the need for continuing dialogue,whatever the difficulties (he quotes, with approval, the Lamheth Conference of1998 to this effect). He insists that the fijndamental definition of the Church asthe Body of Christ requires visibility. He adds, citing a statement of the BaptistUnion Do ctrine and W orship C om mittee, 'it follows from a biblical unde rstandingof the Church as covenant... there is no option about local churches being partof a wider fellowship of churches'. The duty of the churches to relate follows fromthe sum mons to allow Christ to become manifest th rou gh out His Body. 'If he is tobecom e visible at everyl v lof hum an socie ty... then he will be humble enough totake on the rags and tatters of our organisations.' Though Fiddes is here speakingof Baptist associations or local councils of churches, one feels that, by extension,this is a challenge to B aptists abou t a form of connexionalism , possibly even aboutthe sign of the episcopal succession and, ultimately, the Petrine ministry, all ofwhich, on this side of the eschaton, can be acknowledged as both imperfect an d yetvarian t ecclesial results of the Incarnatio n in which Christ took o n the weakness ofhumanity including its social embodiment.

The reconciliation of the continuing authority of the local, gathered churchwithin the Baptist tradition with the understanding of the other ecclesiologiesobviously remains the 64,000 question for all ofus.Fiddes provides three valuableclues. Firstly, he reminds us that the purpose of all the manifold spiritual giftsdistributed within each and every local churchis'for C hrist to use all His membersin order to becom e reachable and graspable by people today, to draw them into thelife of the triune God'. This surely applies also to the special charisms granted toparticular denom inational com mun ities and traditions, to the sum of the typoiofChristian life. Fiddes then adds that conciliar communion is required not just tomake decisions abou t resources and strategy for m ission, but because of 'the morefundamental need to meet under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to discuss thenatu re of the apostolic faith and its proc lamation today'. Finally, he asserts tha t thelocal church is not com petentalone(my italics) to find the mind of Christ, but torecognizeit This last point has implications for the curren t debate abo ut reception.Obviously, it is difficult to reconcile with a heavily magisterial understanding inwhich reception virtually becomes meek submission but it may prove compatible


6/8

92 Ecdesiologypast and the Divine working in the p resent age . He cites the precedent of thoseBaptists, who, on receiving assurances concerning the continuing role of the locachurches in seeking the mind of Christ, entered the episcopally ordered Church ofNorth India, believing that, in so doing, they were acting in the exercise of theirliberty ... to interp ret and ad m inister the laws of Christ . He concludes, the formthat episkope m ight take in the future is surely one instance of allowing tracks fromthe past to converge with traces of God s movem ent into the future . C learly, this ia challenge to all trad ition s.

The logic of Fiddes s ecclesiological an d ecum enica l stance is tha t Baptistand ecumenical partners must struggle for an appropriate embodiment of theinterdependen t na ture of the Universal Ch urch . Might an insight from the Wesleyanecclesiological tradition help to point to a possible way forward for the AnglicanBaptist relationship by way of enriching the Lima heritage ofth understanding oapostolicity through an increased emphasis upon anapostolicd uty of recognitioThe Wesleyan ecclesiologist, Benjamin Gregory, drew attention to an apostolicparadigm in Acts 8.After the first great persecution in the Jerusalem churc h, manyof the first Christians were scattered abroad, founding churches apart fi-om direcapostolic initiative. The apostles then visited these churches, and, according toGreg ory lost no time in recognising and connecting them , accepting their genuineecclesial status while complem enting it with a deeper in tegration into the life of th erest of the Church.^

Bishop Kallistos Ware has already begun to struggle with this problem froman Orthodox standpoint. He has recorded his encounter with a SingaporeanPentecostalist, his recognition of the genuineness of the latter s trin itarian faithand his own questioning as to whether the apostolicity of such churches may havebeen maintained without the sign of the episcopal succession as treasured withinOrthodoxy.^ Anglicans now need to ask precisely this question; contrariwiseBaptists now have to ask whether, no do ub t in the best of faith, their ancestors werjustified in not recognizing the historic Church of England as a true manifestationof the Body ofChrist, albeit one und er Christ s judg em ent (as are all churches) andone existing under forms that they could not then easily identify within their thenundersta ndin g of covenant ecdesiology. Baptists also need to ask what witness thecan bring, from their own tradition of instruments of wider voluntaryepiscopethe ecumenical debate on th e nature and structure of oversight.

In conclusion, there are, perhaps, four questions that stand out as requiringanswers. First, how confident is Paul Fiddes tha t his fellow Baptists,inpractice ha


7/8

Baptist cclesiology 93tbe eddies and currents of contemporary Baptist ecclesiological self-understandingand practice? Related to this is tbe question of bow effective Baptist structures,sucb as those of tbe Baptist Union in this country, are in dealing witb internaltbeological and other tensions, whicb can be considerable as between m ore liberaland more conservative , within the overall Baptist community. On a more positivenote, how effective are tbey in terms of mutual reception and accountability asconcerns developments witbin the Baptist tradition? Thirdly, what is the NewTestament basis for tbe understanding of tbe covenantal relationship betweenChrist and the individualgathered congregation as opposed to tbat between C bristand tbe Universal Cburcb? I feel it a weakness of this book that it is stronger ontbe seventeenth-century basis of tbis ecclesiology than on tbe biblical basis for it.Finally, and echoing tbe spirit of tbe first two qu estions, is Baptist ecclesiology (and ,in particular, practice), sufficiently strong on wider structures of oversigbt andinterdependence?

DAVID CARTER

A Response to David Carter s Review ofr cksand racesDavid Carter concludes bis very generous and perceptive review of my book.Tracksand Traces witb four questions. They come with the freshness of cballengefrom another ecclesial tradition, and prompt me to look again - from new angles- at the issues I have been han dling . Three of tbe qu estions ask, in effect, howthe ecclesiological theory I bave presented matches up to the actual beliefs andespecially tbe actualpracticesof my fellow-Baptists in the presen t. The reviewer isperhaps prompting me, in the most gentle way, to ask myself whether I bave beenstraying away from tbe Baptist mainstream rather as J. H. Shakespeare did in hisecumenical conversations in the 1920s - wbich left him uncomfortably leading noone, and to nowhere. But I want to approach that sobering challenge by beginningwitb my reviewer s m ore theo retical question , tbe th ird on his list. Is there any NewTestament basis for a covenantal relationship between Cbrist and tbe individualgathered congregation? That was indeed tbe conviction of early Baptists, and Iwillingly accept the criticism that I have simply assumed it to be a valid exegesis.


8/8

baptist ecclesiology

Documents