Bruce Prescott On Reforming Baptist Identity

These are some good thoughts from Bruce Prescott's latest post---Mainstream Baptist: Reforming Baptist Identity:

Jesus revealed that the meaning of election is not about privilege but about service. Everyone who is chosen by God is chosen for service. Jesus also revealed the meaning of service to God. Jesus set aside his power and privileges and submitted himself to death on a cross in the service of God. That is what he was chosen to do. When he died, the veil in the temple was rent from top to bottom. God himself tore down all the barriers that had been erected to keep people at a distance from his blessings.

Everyone who responds to the call of God has been chosen for service. Service to God always involves sacrifice. We have been commanded to take up our own cross when we follow Jesus. At the very least that means that we must be willing to share the blessings that God has given us with others.

Too many Baptists in America resemble the ancient Jews more than Jesus. They are more concerned about preserving the privileges of their nationality than with sharing the blessings of the good news about God’s love for all people.

Too many Baptists are among the armed vigilantes standing guard at our borders.

Too many Baptists are among the placarded protestors at tea parties blocking the entrance to our medical clinics.

Too many Baptists think God called them for pampering and privilege rather than for sacrificial service.

Blessings can quickly turn into curses when we insist on hoarding them all for ourselves rather than sharing them freely with others.

And here are my thoughts related to the post: Indeed God's call is a radical call to loving and self-sacrificial service to others---it is a lifelong activity as Karl Barth says:

“God so loved'—not the Christian, but—'the world'. 'I am the light of the world', says the Lord, and by His own self-giving He passes the light on to His disciples: 'Ye are the light of the world!' It is the duty of the real Church to tell and show the world what it does not yet know. This does not mean that the real Church's mission is to take the whole or even half the world to task. It would be the servant of quite a different Master if it were to set itself up as the accuser of its brethren. Its mission is not to say 'No', but to say 'Yes'; a strong 'Yes' to the God who, because there are 'godless' men, has not thought and does not think of becoming a 'manless' God—and a strong 'Yes' to man, for whom, with no exception, Jesus Christ died and rose again. How extraordinary the Church's preaching, teaching, ministry, theology, political guardianship and missions would be, how it would convict itself of unbelief in what it says, if it did not proclaim to all men that God is not against man but for man. It need not concern itself with the 'No' that must be said to human presumption and human sloth. This 'No' will be quite audible enough when as the real Church it concerns itself with the washing of feet and nothing else. This is the obedience which it owes to its Lord in this world.”

—Karl Barth, "The Real Church," Against the Stream: Shorter Post-War Writings 1946-52 (London: SCM Press, 1954), 73.

Also:

To stand in the unconditional loving service of God and others, the church must first stop acting as if it or bible translations are the Holy Spirit---as if any human, human cultural biases or human institution can restrict and regulate, whom the Holy Spirit wills to call to ministry or in general---for a lot of people (mainly Fundamentalists and bible literalists) actually believe that they can usurp the authority of the Holy Spirit from willing, whom the Holy Spirit wills to call to the ministry or in general and/or that it is their task to determine whom can and can’t be called to the ministry or in general instead of the Holy Spirit alone---and in so telling the Holy Spirit what to do, they not only commit idolatry (ecclesiolatry as well as bibliolatry and poimenolatry/clericalism), but also worse than that it grieves the Holy Spirit (the only unforgivable sin). As Christ is the True pillar of the church for us and in giving the Great Commission, Christ excluded no one from ministering the Gospel, serving and being served including gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and both women and men of every culture, climate, race, type and personality. Secondly, in the Bible, the unfolding of God’s will and self-disclosure of God’s self-revelation, in the Person and work of Christ---we find that God was most fully revealed as being Love itself---for Christ is Love---as Robinson (influenced by Paul Tillich) wrote: "For it is in making himself nothing, in his utter self-surrender to others in love, that [Jesus] discloses and lays bare the Ground of man's being as Love" (ibid., p. 75, italics added). He also wrote: "For assertions about God are in the last analysis assertions about Love" (ibid., p. 105)--- (Honest To God --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A.T._Robinson). When we divinely encounter Christ as Love for us, in the advent of the proclamation of scripture---we see all of Christian ethics is contingent upon the moral axioms of the Higher Law of Righteousness, Love, Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness---the Golden Rule and to love God completely and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. If the sum and substance of Christian morality and ethics then is this---then why should we read Christian morality out of a vacuum with no insight, inquiry and reference to the Higher Law, on which the line of all Christian morality is drawn? For what profits one to have morality without love? For all of Christianity is rooted in loving service---just as Brennan Manning says*---quoting from Barbara Doherty: "Love is service. ‘There is no point in getting into an argument about this question of loving. It is what Christianity is all about---take it or leave it. Christianity is not about ritual or moral living except insofar as these two express the love that causes both of them. We must at least pray for the grace to become love.’" (*-pg. 29 of A Glimpse Of Jesus: The Stranger To Self-Hatred)

Was Saint Patrick An Early Emergent And Reformer Of The Church?

Here is a snippet of a post by Dan Mayes:

Emergents are stepping on the scene as Christians who are willing to ask tough questions, challenge old traditions and theologies, and pursue a quest for a faith and theology that's relevant in a new day and age. Saint Patrick was perhaps the first emergent.


He is credited with having evangelized Ireland, being the first person to really get Christianity to take root there. But it wasn't easy. During Patrick's time, most Irish were involved in what would now be considered "pagan" religions. They followed the old religions of the Celts. So it was hard for people embedded in one culture and religion to give that up for a new one, especially one that came to them from Rome. So instead of dominating everyone and insisting on his way being better than theirs, Patrick took time and found connections between the Celtic religions and Christianity. Slowly but surely, these connections opened doors for him. What resulted was the spread of Christianity. But it was not Roman-dominated, Roman-cultural variety of Christianity. It was a Christianity no one had really encountered before. It was a form of Christianity that looked Celtic in nature, but had Christ at it's center core.


So as we celebrate Saint Patrick's day, celebrate someone who learned how to find faith in a way that was relevant and meaningful to the people around him.

I'd like to offer a few other thoughts to the question at hand. Saint Patrick used 'unconventional methods' for conversion in his day:

Methods for Conversion

Surely Saint Patrick openly preached the gospel message while among the Picts and Irish peoples, but that method does not alone account for conversions to Christianity. In terms of numbers, Patrick himself suggested that he baptized and converted “many thousands,” to the faith. It is true that Patrick had some success converting the sons and daughters of Irish Kings to Christianity, but actual figures of the numbers of converts among the entirety of the Irish population remain unknown. There is no solid mention of him teaching the catechism of the Church to new believers, so there is little evidence to suggest that the new converts maintained the Christian faith without a foundation in doctrinal teachings. It was quite possible that converts reverted back to their traditional pagan beliefs, especially without any clear support from Church leaders on the European mainland.

One way for Saint Patrick to ensure success for evangelizing opportunities while among the Irish was to live in solidarity with those whom he was trying to convert. Approaching the Irish as an equal while showing no pretense of superiority allowed the Irish to become more receptive of Christian teachings. In fact, Patrick himself avowed in his Confession that he “sold this nobility of [his],”[41] to enhance the commonality between himself and his Irish audience.

Although he may not have been as well versed in the teachings of the Church as other missionaries, Saint Patrick did understand the basic tenets of the Christian faith. Yet, Saint Patrick seemed to be haunted by his lack of education, and claimed that evangelizing among the Irish “revealed his lack of learning,” according to his own Confession. Limited education would prove to be an obstacle for Patrick, and considering that “every word [he] spoke had to be translated into a foreign tongue,”[42] communicating with the pagans in Ireland became a daunting task.

A complete lack of adequate translators hindered Saint Patrick’s attempts to explain the Gospel message and herald his message of the dogma of Jesus Christ. In fact, later Christian missionaries aware of the challenges faced by Patrick would ensure that a sufficient knowledge of foreign languages was known before embarking on missions abroad. Jesuit missionaries in later years would pay particular attention to the details of languages while traveling in Asia and North America.

Saint Patrick was able to preach and lead significantly by example, so when Bishops in Europe accused Patrick of various unknown charges, his reputation inevitably suffered among the Picts and Irish people. As a result it can be assumed that progress being made in gaining favor among the people would have diminished considering Saint Patrick’s authority as Bishop in Ireland became challenged. Overall, his mission to Ireland cannot be determined as successful or not in the missionary sense due to the limited knowledge we have concerning his life there. It can be assumed that the immensity of the challenges facing Saint Patrick would have made any significant change to the religious landscape of Ireland difficult.

Truly, Patrick lived a missional life with Christ at the center by living 'in solidarity with those whom he was trying to convert. Approaching the Irish as an equal...(and) showing no pretense of superiority, (which) allowed the Irish to become more receptive of Christian teachings.' Patrick was also very immersed in Celtic traditions and Celtic religious lore and unlike the legend, Patrick used the Celtic Triads and reverence for three-ness to teach the Trinity rather than the shamrock itself.

Saint Patrick and the Snakes:
Another tale about Patrick is that he drove the snakes from Ireland. Different versions of the story, tell of him standing upon a hill, using a wooden staff to drive the serpents into the sea, banishing them forever from Ireland.

One version says that an old serpent resisted banishment, but that Patrick outwitted him. Patrick made a box and invited the snake to enter. The snake insisted it was too small and the two argued. Finally to prove his point, the snake entered the box to show how tight the fit was. Patrick slammed the lid closed and threw the box into the sea.

Although it’s true that Ireland has no snakes, this likely had more to do with the fact that Ireland is an island and being separated from the rest of the continent the snakes couldn’t get there. The stories of Saint Patrick and the snakes are likely a metaphor for his bringing Christianity to Ireland and driving out the pagan religions (serpents were a common symbol in many of these religions).

Patrick also created tension between himself and Pope Celestine I much like non-fundamentalists and fundamentalists today. Here is how:

Ireland's First Christian : Truth or Myth
So did Patrick or Palladius bring Christianity to Ireland? No, there already were Christians in Ireland before Patrick. The first Christians may have been people, like Patrick, brought to Ireland as slaves, or others who had traded with, or even lived for a time within, the Roman Empire. The evidence is compelling: for the Bishop Palladius to have been sent from Rome a Christian community must have been already been established in Ireland, probably arriving as early as the 4th Century.

The Celtic Church
An interesting issue about this early period is whether there was any distinction between the 'Celtic Church' and the more traditional Roman Church. Some see Patrick as the embodiment of the Celtic Church, with Palladius representing the latter. This is seen by many as an attempt to view the past through the political and religious distinctions of today. However, what may actually be being picked up here are tensions between the established Christian orthodoxy and the newer Irish Christianity built over older pagan ways. That tension came to its conclusion at the synod of Whitby in 664 when a debate over the use of the Celtic or Roman tonsure and method of dating of Easter was finally resolved with the Celtic Church adopting the Roman way.

Christianity in Ireland succeeded because of its ability to adapt older pagan customs to the new ways. A good example is the pagan festivals that became Christianised, Samhain becoming All Souls, and Imbolg becoming St Brigid's Day. Indeed, many of the holy wells associated with St Patrick, found all over the country, are believed to have pagan origins.

Also:

The Roman Church and the Celtic Christians

Unfortunately, neither the Celtic churches nor the movement Patrick founded lasted indefinitely. In the late sixth century, missionaries from the Roman church began converting the English (the descendants of the Anglo, Saxon, and Jute immigrants/invaders). Of course, the Roman missionaries couldn't help bumping into the "native" Christians. Nor could they help feeling uncomfortable with the hundreds of thriving Christian communities that didn't answer to Rome and saw no reason to follow doctrines, dogmas, and regulations that had entered the Roman church since the third century AD. Roman church leaders were also appalled at the married clergy, at the monasteries' lax discipline, at the lack of emphasis on Original Sin, and at the Celtic monk's haircuts, which looked silly to the monks on the continent.
When the time came to discuss reconciliation between the Roman and Celtic Christians, several points of serious disagreement could have been debated. But according to historical records, most of the emphasis seemed to be on when Easter should be celebrated. Without too much fuss, most of the Irish church leaders capitulated on when to celebrate Easter (and most other points of difference) by the year 697. The Irish monks changed their haircuts, and Ireland became Roman Catholic almost overnight. In return, Ireland got to keep her patron saint. (Clergy in the British Isles continued to marry for another four centuries, but that's another story.)

Sadly, many of Patrick's reforms, especially literacy, were reversed by later imperialism. After the English did invade Ireland, most Irish were denied the rights to read, to live above abject poverty, or even to speak their own language. Centuries of such treatment should have broken the Irish spirit forever. But Irish music, culture, and self-identity survived, and beginning in the 1800s, actually revived.

See also: St. Patrick's Day is March 17th New Style and March 30th Old Style!! and A Friar's Life: The Real St. Patrick. Here is a snippet of The Real St. Patrick:

Patrick the Mystic

"Patrick was a mystic who felt the presence of God in every turn of the road," Cahill says. "God was palpable to him, and his relationship to him was very, very close." In fact, he says, it was very much like the relationship in the Bible that Jesus has with God the Father. "It is very familiar and comfortable, and that is how Patrick saw God at work in the world."

So what are your thoughts?