This is where I believe we need to live as Baptists, but it is a tough neighbourhood. It makes us vulnerable and requires us to give up some of our cherished notions of the status we earn, the recognition to which we are entitled, the positions we wish to keep.

Some Assumptions About the Priesthood of All Believers and Our Life Together

The priesthood of all believers is the understanding that every individual is able to deal directly with God through faith in Jesus Christ, i.e., without a human mediator. We are free to come directly to God as individuals.

Soul liberty is the understanding that God has sovereignty over an individual’s conscience: each person has the responsible freedom, before God, of how s/he lives and grows as an individual. Neither understanding includes the individual right to make her/his own determination of how s/he will live, without reference to another individual. Responsible freedom is to be exercised in community with others. The Priesthood of all believers is inclusive of ministry of all the believers together: ministry with and to each other (cf. 1 Peter 2.9; 1 Corinthians 12.12-28; Ephesians 4.12f.). The original vision of the Free church (Baptists claim to belong to the Free Church tradition) was a gathered, covenantal community disciplined from within.

While on the basis of the priesthood of all believers the Baptists hold that the individual has the "competence" to seek the Word within the covenantal community of the faithful, it is the congregation which covenants with God and not the isolated individual, no matter how competent his [sic] soul. The primacy of the local church is based on the principle that the church in its acts seeks to discern and be obedient to the mind of Christ within the situations in which it finds itself. The congregation is primary because in the local fellowship there is opportunity for loving concern, mutual criticism, and a common discipline . . . (P. Harrison, Authority and Power In The Free Church Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959, p.222.)

[Baptists] gave flesh to the principle of the priesthood of all believers by their emphasis on corporate decision making and corporate responsibility. Just as each believer was free to approach God, so the body of believers was corporately responsible for its life together. Each
believer, without distinction of office, was responsible for evangelizing, service, and mutual discipline. . . . Theirs was an individual liberty constrained only by the Bible but disciplined by a congregation of fellow priests. (Nancy Ammerman, Baptist Battles, New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1990, p.21.)

This vision requires us to be committed to each other’s growth and ministry as individuals and as a community: we are priests to each other. Each priest is gifted for ministry with her/his fellow priests by virtue of her/his life in Christ. The church is a creative, interdependent community. In this community the participants are welcomed and encouraged, in their diversity, to be part of the creative development of the church and its individual members. They are responsible and accountable for that creative development. Commitment to that community is empowering, as each individual is valued and learns to value others, s/he is given the freedom to grow as God’s person.

We Don’t like Ambiguity

Interdependence requires a recognition of authority. God, in calling people to be priests, gifts them for their calling with the potential to influence the lives of others. Having the possibility of influencing the lives of others, including their behaviour and thought, is power. Authority is the permission to use one’s power. In empowering people to minister, God gives them authority. 

Before a person can receive ministry from another, s/he must recognise that other person’s authority to minister. There are ways of formally recognising the authority of individuals (e.g., ordination), but authority also is self-validated by ministry that encourages and honours trust and risk. However, individuals who choose to trust and take risks with others find that trust and risk
often are not honored by the people whom they choose to trust. Therefore individuals tend to resist the influence of others. 

In Baptist life, where the priesthood, i.e., ministry—which includes recognition of the power and authority—of all believers is a precept, the potential for ambiguity is high because of varying degrees of mutual trust: the more priests there are in the church, the more authorities there are in our lives. The focus on the individual of soul liberty perpetuates and is perpetuated by a hierarchical understanding of leadership, which tends to concentrate power and authority at the top. It also tends to place a higher value on those persons at the top, and a lower value on those lower in the hierarchy. Those lower in the hierarchy are encouraged to focus their trust on those higher. Hierarchies help believers come to terms with the ambiguity of the authority and power of others with whom they are in community, but they create inequities and diminishes the interdependence of the believers in the church.

Life Together

Living within non-hierarchical relationships, i.e., with loving concern, mutual criticism and common discipline, requires us to live with the ambiguity of vulnerability and trust. We must choose not to exploit each others’ trust, and confront it when someone in the gathered community abuses that trust. Accountability requires the courage to confront and the wisdom to know how. The practice of vulnerability requires us to create an environment where every voice, even dissident voices, are welcomed. Our dialogues with each other require us to listen to and trust each other’s knowledge and competency, and especially, to value the experiences we bring to dialogue.

Ray Hobbs

After reading this document, which appeared on the BCOQ Web Page, and was presumably distributed in regular mailings, I have some concerns over centralization within the convention, and other matters. Here are my reflections. They are based on what some Biblical scholars today would call a 'close reading' of the text. That is a reading which takes into precise consideration the language used in any document, the style, vocabulary, the nature of the implied author, the implied reader, and the intentions of the document. It is what many might recognize as 'exegesis':

1. The document purports to be 'Information' on the matter of church constitutions. It is not. It is, in fact, very direct advice. The second paragraph opens with a sentence containing the words 'two pages of suggestions'. This, it seems to me is much closer to the intention of the letter.

2. Why do churches need such 'suggestions'? The document states 'From time to time we get requests as churches are looking at their organizations and concluding that they need to reexamine their church constitutions.' The comment is vague. Who are the 'we' involved? How many requests does the 'we' get 'from time to time'? Do the requests come from the churches themselves? Precision is needed here for the reader to be convinced that this is a pressing need within the convention.

3. In the third paragraph of the document it is clear that even those churches who have not requested help, or see no need to revise their constitution, are being prompted to do so - along the lines suggested in the following pages.

4. In this third paragraph the apparent intention of the document is narrowed to deal with the need for careful procedures which protect 'everyone involved', especially in cases where abuse or misconduct are alleged to have occurred. This is a noble sentiment, but it quickly slips into something else.

5. Also in the third paragraph, which deals with the affiliation of the local congregation to larger bodies, the following statement is made: 'We think you should write the paragraph, 'This formal affiliation shall extend to...etc.' in to your church constitution. We believe this should be a priority item at this time. Being such an independent bunch, Baptists actually have to say they are willing to be guided by the policies of our Associations and Convention.'

My question - why? If Baptists are (and have been) such an independent bunch, why stop them now? What policies of the Associations and Convention does this entail, beyond guidelines for ordination etc? How does the affiliation of the BCOQ with the EFC kick in here? Unease.
Notice here that the issue of 'abuse or misconduct' has disappeared, and the thrust of the document is to bring churches into line with association and convention policies. Policies on what is not made clear. It is clear, however, that this is suggested to counter the character of Baptists as being 'an independent bunch'.

6. A further comment in the document concerns 'the age of accountability' in which we now live, and the suggestion that we should also set the parameters on the accountability of our church. I am not sure who has declared this to be an age of accountability. Postmodern observers would argue otherwise, namely that this is an age of ideas, values and ways of living centred on the self. I do not necessarily agree with this assessment, but I have never thought that the character of the age has changed to fit the description in the document. That accountability is necessary is beyond debate. But, I draw attention to the language used in the document. I note that here the accountability is one-way, and designated as the accountability of the church to the BCOQ. Woah! I think this has things the wrong way round. The BCOQ, and its agencies are accountable to the churches, if for no other reason than that the money by which they operate is raised by the churches. In my estimation this side of accountability is conspicuous by its absence in recent years. How about the accountability of the BCOQ to the churches over the McMaster fiasco, and the recent firing of the archivist from the CBA? What would happen in the event that the Association, the Convention, or officers of either become the abusers? After all, they have considerable power. Who guards the guardians?

7. A wide range of affiliations are encouraged (BCOQ, CBM, BWA), but then the document suggests, among other things 'This might be a good place to enter a paragraph such as the following: 'This formal affiliation shall extend to, [a]support of the programs [sic!] and ministries of these Baptist bodies...' But again, I ask Why? Is there no room for the supposed autonomous congregation to dissent, to question, and to seek to correct the 'programs and ministries' of these Baptist bodies? I would hope that the example I saw in Europe be followed, namely, that many congregations and pastors actively and vocally dissented from the decision of the European Baptist Federation to 'refocus' the programmes at IBTS, Prague. At least one General Secretary lost his job over this.

8. An additional comment under this paragraph is, to my mind, even more ominous. Under [d] we read 'submission to common guidelines for discipline of pastors and/or churches.' At this point I say, No! At what point does the autonomy of the local congregation take precedence over the will of the majority of churches? To provide a hypothetical case (but one which I think will become more and more common), what if a congregation calls a pastor, or appoints a deacon who is gay, or if the congregation strongly dissents from the stance taken on this issue, for example, by the EFC. This so-called 'information' (really, a strong suggestion) would stifle dissent.

9. The same reaction came when I read the 'Statement on membership' paragraph, in which it is again stated 'This would be a good place to enter a sentence such as the following: 'The church expects from its members a commitment to ethical and moral standards typical in other churches of the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, including as we understand it...' With all due respect, this is the business of the local congregation, who might choose to disagree with the what might be deemed 'typical' of churches of the BCOQ (who determines that?) It also presupposes a rather limited view of morality. In the early years of the second world war it was left to a very few brave pastors to protest the internment of Japanese Canadians, and the confiscation of their property after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Many Baptists in Canada just went along with the national hysteria and hatred of Japanese Canadians. Here is an example of collective racism which was 'typical' of many, if not most, and which needed to be challenged, and denounced.

There are many other issues worth debating in the document, but I suggest the document needs careful exegesis and a careful response. There are some things which are acceptable, but there is more which could be found objectionable on matters of Baptist polity. The Gathering is committed to, among other things, the encouragement of the BCOQ, and criticism should not be seen as contrary to this intention. I end with some quotations from Milton's essay Aereopagitica, 'When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered, and speedily reformed, then is the height of civil liberty attained.' And again, (pardon the exclusive language) 'For he who freely magnifies what has been nobly done, and fears not to declare as freely what might be done better, gives ye the best covenant of his fidelity.'

Compiled by Daphne Hunt 

Jeff Pool's discussion of the priesthood of all believers was pastoral, scriptural, and Jesus-centred.

As I read Jeff's book last night, I wondered if Baptists in Ontario and Quebec have ever considered it so deeply. Post-war, we moved comfortably, it seems, in the mainline mode, even partnering on a Sunday School Curriculum with the United Church. When I was a girl, I taught from it and thought it very fine for my little preschool class. I have no truck with the move to ditch it. Still, I wonder if we lost some sense of our "distinctive" then, as we do now in our absorption by the fundamentalist mainstream. I was struck at a meeting of women pastors in Toronto by the fact that every woman there except me was involved in an alpha course, a program which seems pretty monolithic to me. 

I wasn't here until 1980, so I really am wondering, and not pontificating. When did we lose, or did we ever have, the kind of insight and intention and confidence in our identity as Baptists that our Southern Baptist "moderate" friends seem to have? Did their clarity come from pain, or their pain come from clarity?

Or do we have it and not know it? Or what? 
At our Open Space session in Woodstock last fall, Dick Myers suggested we consider what we mean by freedom of conscience. We did some of that on Saturday, and I appreciated it.
So I'm all for more of the same. What are some of the other issues that so deeply affect us? The priesthood of believers is critical. Does all else flow from that?

- Barbara Bishop
___

The words "priesthood of all believers" and "the autonomy of the local congregation" connote ways that Baptists over the years have sought to relate to one another. 
On Saturday, 24 Apr, The Gathering of Baptists met at Fonthill Baptist Church where the guest speaker, Jeff Pool, Interim Director of the Baptist Studies Program, of Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University, in Fort Worth TX, invited us to think about what we mean when we say these words. While some will seek a definition by answering the question, "What do we believe?" The real challenge for us is not in identifying what people believe or defining them when they affirm such statements, but rather to find and point to these principles being lived out in our relationships, individually and corporately. In other words, the questions more worthy of consideration should include, what does it look like, who do we look like, who are we and whose are we, what do we do and where are we going? 

Fear has arisen today amid the insecurities of changing times and contexts in which the people of God find themselves. Freedom can be scary enough, but the temptation to exchange freedom for the apparent securities of "defining" threatens who we are "becoming" under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our real security is found in the measure we reflect the freedom we have in Christ. Amid all the variables in our dialogue with scripture and one another, Jeff called our attention to what he saw as central to the Gospel. Love! Love is never love when it is possessed. Love is experienced in the exchange. We were a diverse group from a variety of communities and we experienced the priesthood of all believers as we returned God's love through our worship, as we served one another by entering into dialogue about scripture and about our past. We gave expression of our love for God's children and world through a written response to our Prime Minister about the crisis in Yugoslavia. 

As an affirmation of the autonomy of the local congregation, recognizing our inter- dependance, I expect that the communities of faith represented at this Gathering of Baptists will be built up and nourished in their particular contexts. It happens when what is experienced -- the questions and doubts, the insights and caring -- continue to be freely given and received. 

- Al Roberts
____

The stories of your recent denominational experiences echo many of those of Baptists in the Southern US and elsewhere. I also identified with the vision you proclaim and live out, the hopes you have for yourselves, and the concerns you have for our world. I was glad to witness the discussion on Kosovo -- the fact that you were able to discuss the situation with deep concern -- and with respect for each other -- and the fact that you issued a strong statement.

- LeDayne McLeese Polaski
Managing Director - Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America
___

Jeff gave us another dimension to both the Priesthood of All Believers and the Autonomy of the Local Church, emphasizing our broader community responsibility as Baptists. We tend to concentrate on our individual priesthood and autonomy, and we forget the "into all of our worlds" commission.

- Gary Caldwell
____

I was not able to be at Fonthill, so don't know how the conversations went.

In 1938-39 when Harold Lang wrote "What Baptists Believe" for the Baptist component of the curriculum we shared with the United Church, Priesthood of all Believers meant that we, as Baptists, did not have to go through any other Priest to reach God in our prayer. After World War II the meaning in Ontario and Quebec began to evolve into how many of us perceive it today -- each one a priest in the church with the responsibilities and opportunities that go with
it, meaning we can have a communion service without an ordained minister serving it and lay people can preach a sermon.

On Sunday I shall formally be received into membership in a United Church. They have no concept of priesthood of believers -- the ordained minister must serve communion and not just anyone can preach a sermon.

Mind you, I have preached twice in the United Church in the last couple of months and will be again on Pentecost Sunday. I do get practice!

- Judith Colwell
___

On the priesthood of all believers:
Take a plastic margarine container, fill it with water, put a lid on it and you have a statement of faith. The water is there, but it goes nowhere.
Remove the lid, pour it into other containers, refill it frequently from the tap and from the other containers and you have a living faith. The water is there for all to share.

- Daphne L. Hunt

NETWATCH

http//www.hivolda.no/asf/kkf/rel-stud.html - Is the web site of Prof. Torrey Seland of Hivolda College in Norway. Prof. Seland's work is widely known throughout the world, and is a must see.

http//www.stolaf.edu/people/kchanson Is the web site of Dr. K.C. Hanson, the Old Testament Editor of Fortress Books. K.C. (that is his name!) is a member of the Context Group of Biblical scholars, and an indefatigable collector of bibliographies. Another essential site.

Jean Vanier is a Canadian national treasure. The former naval officer and philosophy professor is the son of one of our Governors General. He founded l’Arche in 1974. L’Arche is a movement providing communities for the intellectually disabled. Vanier’s recent Massey 

Lectures, given on the CBC last Fall, have now been produced in book form. The collection of lectures, published by Anansi House, Toronto, is entitled Becoming Human, and is a beautiful hymn to the contemplative, open and forgiving life. It is highly recommended.

An intellectually challenging book has come across my desk recently. It is David Lowenthal’s The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge University Press, 1998). 

Lowenthal distinguishes sharply between history and the current craze for ‘heritage’. His knowledge is encyclopedic, his style always engaging, and his conclusions sometimes disturbing. Recent discussions in Canada about our heritage and culture - we even have a minister of the crown to safeguard it for us - make this an essential text for the serious thinker.

NEWSFILE

Atlantic Baptists have much to consider of late. Acadia Divinity College has announced the appointment of a new Principal, Dr. Lee MacDonald of California. Dr. MacDonald (56) is an American Baptist, a pastor, and writer on New Testament studies. He holds graduate degrees from Harvard and Edinburgh Universities, and has recently been an adjunct professor at Fuller Theological Seminary.

There is talk of the demise of The Atlantic Baptist the venerable and primary communication organ of UBCAP. This is a sad prospect, and as with similar events in the BCOQ, it would leave the Atlantic Baptists with no news or communication medium beyond convention, and conventional ‘PR’.

The Atlantic Baptist University (formerly the Atlantic Baptist College) in Moncton is hiring new Faculty, and insisting that they sign a statement of faith as a condition of employment. Very un-Baptist, unless one thinks of recent events in the SBC.
(These items courtesy of the ABF Bulletin).

Also at Acadia, Barry Morrison, currently pastor of MacNeill Baptist Church, Hamilton, and member of the Gathering, has accepted the invitation to teach Homiletics and Liturgy at the College. Barry is a graduate of McMaster University (B.A.), McMaster Divinity College (M.Div.) and of St. Michael’s University, University of Toronto (Th.D.).

A recent conference, sponsored by the Alliance of Baptists, and held in Virginia, outlined the dangers of unclear structures of management and responsibility for churches. The conference speakers repeatedly stressed the need for churches to be aware of the importance of clear constitutions, clear by-laws and careful book-keeping.
(Courtesy of ABPS)

McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, has recently announced the appointment of Janet Clark as Director of Field Education, to replace Ruth Fraser who will retire in June, 1999. Janet Clark is a graduate of McMaster University and Wilfrid Laurier University and is a former missionary.
(Courtesy The Hamilton Spectator).

For the first time since 1926 the membership of the Southern Baptist Convention has declined. Although church attendance, and giving are up, the total number of members decreased by approximately one per cent.
(Courtesy ABPS)

The Fall ‘99 meeting of The Gathering will take place at Lorne Park Baptist Church, Mississauga, and will be held on Saturday 30th October, 1999.

The format of the day will be an ‘Open Space’ discussion on three themes which appear in our Mandate as The Gathering of Baptists. The exact wording is ‘...to create and to foster open discussion in our search to think, to love and to minister in harmony with God’s will.’ these will be our points of focus for the day.

Please indicate to Merle Caldwell whether you will be in attendance for the day. Merle can be reached at:
Phone: 1 519 647 3504
E-mail: caldwell@icom.net
Address: 2464 Concession Road West
R.R. #1, Lynden
ON L0R 1T0

Feedback can be directed to:  The Gathering Newsletter c/o Ray Hobbs e-mail ray.hobbs@sympatico.ca