Tagged: Discernment
Polity and Equality: Thoughts on the SBC and Doctrinal Discernment in a Diverse Church
My heart laments the SBC’s decision on women serving in pastoral roles, as unsurprising as this decision is. It was 13 years ago, almost to the day, that my employment as a church planter was discontinued because the association leader of my former Baptist denomination (one very similar in theology to the SBC) gave me an ultimatum: be quiet and toe the party line on complementarianism or find yourself without funding. I said I would not stay silent about what God had convicted me about. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe this sensibility—the sacred liberty and responsibility of the soul and souls covenanting together where two or three are gathered to relate to God without external mediation or compulsion—lies at the heart of what it means to follow Christ in the Baptist tradition.
As I pleaded with that leader then, and what I hope to impress on fellow Baptists today: the travail of discerning truth in community is so much messier than what any denominational polity can secure, and more often than not, the use of denominational polity mechanisms to end a theological debate almost always is the wrong move.
Not that I am averse to doctrinal positions. If anything, having doctrinal positions is something of an occupational hazard of mine. Perhaps that is why I’d like to think I know better. At any rate, I happily recite the Apostles’ Creed and acknowledge the wisdom of the Great Tradition. However, I am always humbled at how minimal the convictions necessary for fellowship were for the early church: the confession that God is one, Christ is lord, come in the flesh, crucified for the forgiveness of sin, alive, risen, and coming again, pouring out his Spirit on all flesh. While I, for one, see a theology systematically fleshed out to be virtuous, it is always with the caution that dogmas are to be held with open palms.
The best of Baptist theology recognizes this non-dogmatic approach, always prioritizing the Word of God over any decision or summary about the Word. Baptists in the Atlantic came together and formed a Basis of Union—a rather clumsy and dated document by today’s standards, for anyone foolish and obtuse enough to think it holds the place of a creed—and its intentions are probably more significant than its content: not out of need for strict doctrinal uniformity and enforcement (for neither existed), but out of a need to hold agreement on the Gospel despite deep differences. For them, it was between Calvinists and Free Will Baptists, which today is not our situation—again, for those so foolish as to think somehow that apostolic advice that “the letter killeth” only pertains to scriptural axioms and not the interpretation of scriptural axioms. If our predecessors held to a Christ-centred unity on matters of no small importance, such as whether salvation is eternally secure, surely we can do the same on other matters.
That experience of leaving my denominational home has formed my convictions on the meaning of doctrine ever since. I believe a doctrine that needs enforcement is usually a doctrine held inauthentically and unthoughtfully. When doctrinal statements stop being tools for conversation and become instruments of adherence, the question shifts from “Do I believe this sincerely to be true?” to, more subtly, “Do I go along with this because I am told this is the right answer?” or “Do I agree to this so that I can belong or have a job?” When this happens, the sacred process of sifting the conscience is short-circuited in the name of brute loyalty.
It is so easy to finger-wave at the SBC and its denial of women’s equality, but then support the same kind of exercise of power that creates the problem in the first place. Baptist polity is not majoritarian rule. Any situation where 75% can rule over the 25% is a potential catastrophe for the body of Christ. A body that can afford to neglect a quarter of itself is simply not healthy. Surely any mechanism that could be used to rule out such a portion speaks to the irony that Baptists, a tradition of religious dissenters, is so out of touch with itself that it is no longer capable of productively welcoming dissent. I believe in congregational polity as a faithful reflection of the practice of non-hierarchical communal discernment in scripture. Surely there are matters that should be decided as necessary to the ongoing association and partnership of the church, for which there is space to decide and potentially not get your way. But Robert’s Rules of Order is not inspired, and it would be a fatal error to believe that a majority vote is consensus, much less to confuse a successful vote with the kind of spiritual discernment in community the New Testament calls disciples to.
Every doctrinal decision implies a decision on the nature of the church and the nature of the Gospel. It is obvious that the SBC is a body that sees male power and uniform submission to that power at the heart of what Christianity is, so much so that it is willing to scapegoat and suppress victims of abuse. It is sad that folks can’t see that for what it is, yet I know plenty of complementarians who hold their views out of sincere conviction in scripture, as I did at one point. Every time a complementarian says something that to me now seems so utterly sexist, I usually have to stop and ask, “Am I angry with this person because they remind me so much of who I used to be?”
The question I continually ask myself as I lament the brokenness of God’s household is, “What would denominational politics look like if we actually treated the members of God’s family as family?” Good families are neither collectivist nor individualist, neither tyranny nor anarchy, allowing a person to be themselves while also being who they are together. The church should be one of those few spaces left where diversity is not treated ipso facto as dangerous, where fellowship is not dispensed on the condition of agreement. This is not to say that the denominations cannot make decisions on important issues, but the perennial tendency is to use these powers to say, “I no longer need or want to deal with you.” Yet, family contends for family, and that difficult travail of fallibility and deliberation cuts both ways in spaces that welcome anyone to be there as long as they commit to being family, seeking to understand more fully what this means, pledging to see another as deserving the same understanding, respect, and liberty as they have.
If there is one thing that my stance on egalitarianism has convinced me of, it is this: Equality means equality for all, and the measure of this is always how we treat those least advantageous to us. I have so often seen folks tote what I can only call “convenient causes.” If equality is based on God’s dignity in people, we do not get to choose who is our equal, much less the form of equality that benefits us the most or what aspect or intersection that impacts equality as the only one that matters. Some would see this as complicity, but given the chance, as I often have, I would plead with any fellow Christian, hoping that they would see how their convictions are held at the expense of another, assuming they really do care about loving God and others as I do. Some have accused me of tolerating the intolerable: why affirm someone as family that refuses to see that fully in another? It is so easy to tighten the threshold of permissible diversity to chastise those that fail to grasp the inequality implicit in their own convictions or the wounds their views have caused the family, but the question is rather this: what is a way of convincing family in a way that honours them as family? In my experience, the only conscionable solution is also, in the long run, the only effective one: persistent acts of empathy, patience, gentleness, and generosity.
Also, the only solution is the one that permitted the prophetic voice that first challenged the status quo without the status quo expelling it in the first place. Ecclesial spaces must be places where different views can be shared without the threat of exclusion or coercion, recognizing that sincere believers can often reach vastly different conclusions about the same text, and that difference is not necessarily an indication of ill will or ignorance. I often find that the folks most eager to use denominational power to secure a position are the ones with the flimsiest arguments and the least aware of other people’s views. As a person who was an ardent complementarian but came to hold an egalitarian perspective, the only thing that convinced me was deep wrestling with the details of the text in study and prayer and discussion with friends and teachers. I was welcomed into spaces where the condition of that space was to listen and understand another, as I would want to be listened to and understood. It is those kinds of spaces—risky and uncomfortable—that allow for the best voices to rise. While nothing would make me happier than seeing my denomination take a clear stance that all its churches and pastors support women in ministry, I just can’t bring myself to treat a complementarian pastor the same way the complementarian association leader treated me all those years ago. God’s Spirit is doing good things: patriarchy is declining in our denomination, despite it being so persistent in the SBC. I believe this is happening because our churches have done the work of listening, learning, and dialoguing. My hope is that patriarchy will fade, convinced by good arguments, won over by a theology that invites one to freely see the truths of life and Spirit, dying from being well-tolerated without any claim to persecution. It would be an ironic misstep to attempt to end patriarchy by acting patriarchal.
How (Not) to be Patriotic (Part 1): Understanding Culture and Faith
My wife and I, on our honeymoon, did a Mediterranean cruise. We saw Malta, Naples and Pompei, Rome and the Vatican, Florence and Pisa, and finally Cannes, France.
Florence was a gorgeous city. We toured the city’s cathedrals, and through the streets we saw statue after statue, all by walking along very picturesque cobble stone roads.
We came to the city center where the Duomo was. This is a massive cathedral constructed by the same architect that did the St. Peter’s Basilica. The baptismal chapel on the one end of the Duomo has gold gates, called the “Gates of Paradise,” lined with plates of biblical artwork.
I remember thinking, we really don’t have stuff like that in Canada. We don’t have the depth of history like a place like Florence does.
The tour took a break and so I want to the bathroom. As I was washing my hands, one of the other people on the tour started talking to me. Apparently it was acceptable to talk to others in a bathroom in his culture.
“Are you enjoying the tour?”
“Yes, the gates were awesome,” I said.
“You’re an American, yes?” he asked.
Of course, I replied, “No, I’m Canadian.”
To which he replied with one of the most insulting things you could say to a Canadian in that instance: “Oh, same thing!”
If this was hockey, the gloves would have come off!
So, I turn to him and asked, “Your ascent – its Irish, isn’t it?”
“No, I am from London.”
To which I replied, “Oh, same thing!”
Now, since then, that story has caused me to reflect on what it is to be a Canadian. What does it mean to be a Canadian? Are we, as John Wing joked, “Unarmed Americans with healthcare”?
This is not as obvious a question as it sounds. Yes, I was born in the area in between the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans, North of America and South of Greenland, but that does not tell us much about what it means to be a Canadian. That’s geography. However that may tell us something or two.
“Canada [geographically] is like an old cow. The West feeds it. Ontario and Quebec milk it. And you can well imagine what it’s doing in the Maritimes.” – Tommy Douglas
My apologies to all the Maritimers in the room.
Anyways, what I am talking about is being a “true Canadian.” Is there such a thing?
Do Canadians have a particular culture? We love hockey. We love camping. Outdoor sports in general. Everyone in this room knows what it is like to walk out of your house in the winter and breathe in -45 degree Celsius air.
Canadian food: Maple Syrup, bacon, Nanaimo bars, poutine with globs of gravy and cheese curds, beaver tails, etc.
We like to drink unhealthy amounts of coffee, double double. We get our milk in liter plastic bags, not jugs.
Our money is all sorts of goofy colors, and for some reason, the Canadian mint is slowly turning all our bills into progressively larger coins. The 5 and 10 dollar coins are coming, people. What then? I think eventually we will have 20 dollar coins the size of frisbees and eventually 100 coins the size of manhole covers!
We have iconic figures like beavers, moose, the Canada goose. We are apparently really proud of our wildlife!
We sort of go to those kinds of things in order to understand ourselves, but those kinds of things are pretty surface level and outward. That does not tell us a whole lot about us. Hopefully there is more to us than that.
The fact that we have receded into those kinds of cutesy notions of who we are shows what the Canadian media philosopher Marshall McLuhan said decades ago:
“Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity.”
McLuhan was the man that stated, “The medium is the message.” Canada had these brilliant culture philosophers like George Grant and Northrop Frye that no one really remembers today. It’s kind of sad.
Anyways, we are a pluralistic, multi-cultural society, not a culture but a set of cultures, and that leads us to feel a sense like we don’t have a uniform set of values. We often don’t feel like we know who we are deep down as Canadians.
However, interestingly enough, while many Canadians are unaware of it, there is a bizarre consensus in Canada on values.
In college I read the book, Fire and Ice: Canada, the United States, and the Myth of Converging Values. It was a bit of an eye opener. Canada, according to sociologist Michael Adams, is becoming very different from its American counterparts. We are similar to Americans, but as far as values goes, the presence of America to the South of us as caused us to be increasingly different form them on lots of stuff.
That is one way of saying who we are, isn’t it? Canadians are not Americans. Whoever we are, we ain’t that. We are proudly not that.
We always define ourselves in terms our brothers and sisters to the south. Pierre Trudeau once likened North America to a bed where Canada was a beaver trying to sleep next to a raging Elephant (the US).
And while Americans assume they have a more uniform melting pot kind of culture and Canada has a multi-cultural, diverse culture, Canada is actually far more uniform from sea to sea than the US. That’s ironic.
In values of Authority vs. Individuality and Survival vs. Fulfillment, American regions are very diverse: the Deep South is strongly Authority-Survival, South Atlantic is Individuality-Survival. Some states were closer to Authority-Fulfillment while others closer to Individuality-Fulfillment. Meanwhile, all Canadian provinces fell within the Individuality-Fulfillment quadrant.
What does that mean? Here are some of his statistics: Only 20% of Canadians attend church weekly versus 42% for Americans. Only 18% of Canadians feel that the father must be Master of the house versus 49% for Americans. 71% of Canadians felt that a couple living together were family versus 49% for Americans. Only 25% of Canadians were prepared to take great risks versus 38% of Americans. Only 17% of Canadians feel a widely advertised product is probably good versus 44% of Americans
Adam’s said, and I think this sums it up well: Americans would be more likely to brag about a new car; Canadians more likely to brag about the trip they went on.
Adams feels that “an initially conservative society like Canada has ended up producing an autonomous, inner-directed, flexible, tolerant and socially liberal people. On the other hand, “an initially liberal society like the US has ended up producing a people who are materialistic, outer-directed, intolerant and socially conservative.”
Now, here is the important question for today. Does that make our culture the right one?
According to the news, people from both American and Britain have been googling “How to move to Canada” at record rates, but I think that is short-sighted.
I don’t think anyone of them is necessarily bad or good. I see things like and things I am concerned about in those statistics. Sure there are cultures that have strong education or have less crime or promote religion. However that can all have good aspects and bad aspects.
Of course, if we said that Canada’s culture was the best, we would be saying that out of bias, and we would also be failing to cultural arrogance, which is not good.
The fact is that you can take your culture in a good way or a bad way. You can’t blame your culture for stuff you know is wrong. Any culture has upsides and downsides. The point is to be aware of it. There will be extremes. Culture is not necessary a thing to be opposed in faith, but is something to be understood critically, placing our faith and discernment first. We need to celebrate the good and work at eliminated the bad.
Christians have usually two dangerous responses to our cultural identities:
(1) Isolation: Churches that Retreat from Culture
This is very common of fundamentalist churches. Our culture is bad, impure, evil, so lets huddle in our faith bunker where it is safe.
Churches that get isolated don’t use the goodness the Spirit of God has planted in the culture to use to communicate the Gospel. Paul knew this when he spoke to the people at Mars Hill.
There is no such thing as a culture-less church. No church is free from culture. God did not intend it that way. The Bible was written within a culture of its own, but the Word of God speaks to all cultures. The church should be working to promote the best of culture. The point is discerning the good from the bad.
It is not weather we will have a Canadian culture within us or not, the question is will we be aware of it and response appropriately.
Canadians are more skeptical about consumerism and war, and more hospitable to immigrants. That’s good. I think Jesus was too!
Canadians are individuals that value strong relationships over institutions and programs. That is something we can work with.
Canadians might be skeptical about religion, but they are open to talking about justice, spirituality, ideals, and values. In a round about way, that sounds religious!
Lots of people want to lament that our culture is becoming less Christian. That is true in one way, but that does not mean the Spirit has stopped working in our culture to make opportunities for the Gospel.
(2) Accommodation: Churches Claim All Culture for their Own
The worst example of this in history is when Emperor Constantine in the third century made Christianity the state religion. To be Roman was to be Christian. To be Christian was to be Roman. Roman law was ordained by God. The church went to war against Rome’s enemies.
We saw horrific examples of this in Nazi Germany where the state church proclaimed Hitler to be chosen by God to bring glory back to Germany.
We see the same in the British Empire. Where the Anglican Church sanctioned colonialism. The British colonized half the world and now complain about immigrants taking their identity!
We see this also in America today, sadly. American wars for oil have become evangelical crusades against Muslims. The American motto of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is preached as gospel in some churches.
We Canadians can do the same.
I think ours is a culture of apathy and skepticism. We have allergic reactions to organized anything, except organized sports. We have trouble committing to community. We are terribly afraid of offending people with the truth. We are individualists that don’t know who we are and don’t want you to tell us.
That comes out in our religion.
We say stuff like, “I believe Jesus in my Lord and Saviour, but that is just my personal opinion.” (A joke often made by the ethicist, Stan Hauerwas).
We are multi-cultural, which is great. But also we have allowed tolerance to go a bit too far. There are two kinds of tolerance, by the way. One kind says, “You are different from me, so please help me understand you, and let me make a space for you, so that we can have peace.” That’s good.
There is bad tolerance that says, “I don’t know you, I don’t care, you stay out of my business and I’ll stay out of yours. If we bump into each other at Foodland, lets have a shallow conversation about the weather or local sports team, but not anything meaningful, let along religious.”
We are terribly afraid of speaking truth and very afraid to commit to organization and community. That fear has caused us to shrink back from opportunities to encourage people with the Gospel. We are so afraid of offending people that we miss opportunities to encourage.
When we think about our nationality, we have to be critical. We are called to be “in the world and not of the world”
We need to understand that there is good and bad in our culture. We need discernment to that we do not fall into nationalism. Being Canadian can be a good thing, but not necessarily.
This is why we look to how we are apart of another nation: the kingdom of heaven…
Spencer Boersma 