Three Streams

Introduction

In this essay I seek to discuss the ways in which Jurgen Moltmann’s, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, can be considered a baptist book on the church. I will first of all set out the ways in which Moltmann clearly demonstrates a baptist way of thinking and I will then offer some suggestions of where a historic baptist position is lacking both in Moltmann’s book and in some contemporary expressions of baptist life.

The Baptist Union

The Baptist Union in Scotland is founded on the following principles.

The Basis of the Baptist Union is:

1 That our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.

2 That Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who ‘died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day’.

3 That it is the duty of every disciple to bear personal witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to take part in the evangelization of the world.[1]

The Union is itself based upon a ‘Baptist’ approach to being church, Baptists have several distinctive elements but the key distinction is that they are a congregational community of believers.

This is government by the whole congregation…The local congregation is the fundamental unit: no individual official or church body may exercise rights over it. All matters of policy are submitted finally to the judgment of the whole congregation in which the minister, deacons and elders (if any), are on the same level as all the other members. Each congregation is free to interpret the mind of Christ without interference from other congregations or bodies, though in practice most independent churches unite with others in matters of common concern.[2]

On this foundation Baptist congregations have been interpreted in light of six important factors. These factors are; the Rule of Christ, The Holy Spirit, A Gathered Church, A covenanting community, Ministry of all believers, and A Discerning Community.[3] The nature of congregationalism, together with the principles of the union and the other factors will be used in this essay as a measure in order to assess if Jurgen Moltmann’s book Church in the Power of the Spirit is indeed significantly ‘baptist’ in its outlook.

The Rule of Christ

Baptist communities are understood in terms of being made up of believers who have confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in water baptism and have yielded their lives to the Lordship of Christ. The commitment to Christ is expected to be lived out in every sphere of life. Moltmann speaks positively of the confessing church, who at a time when the established church in Germany were too integrated into the political system to separate themselves from ungodly influences. Drawing from the position of the confessing church Moltmann sets forth a view that clearly understands the church in terms of being committed to live under The Rule of Christ.

The confessing church therefore condemned all state claims to dominance over the church that are designed to reduce the church to dependence. It is only when Christ alone rules, and the church listens to his voice only, that the church arrives at its truth and becomes free and a liberating power in the world.[4]

Within this quote we see within Moltmann three elements of baptist Christianity, we see the commitment to the rule of Christ, we see a commitment to a church being free from state control, and we see that the underlying purpose is mission. The outworking of the churches commitment to Christ is that it may be a ‘free and liberating power in the world’.

Moltmann’s understanding of the Rule of Christ is not limited to the general understanding of Christ’s Lordship that would be shared by other non-baptist believers but is also grounded in a baptistic understanding of baptism. While baptism is a distinctive element for baptists, it is not so purely on a methodological basis but on an ecclesiological understanding that is intrinsically linked to how baptists understand the Rule of Christ.

Beasley Murray highlights the foundational link between believers baptism and ‘believers church’.

A Theology of conversion is at the heart of the baptist understanding of baptism. Baptism expresses the believers response of faith to the grace of God…On theological grounds it may be true to say that believers baptism stems from the baptist model of a believers church, and in many ways the latter, rather than the former is our key distinctive.[5]

This concept of both believer’s baptism and believing church is clearly seen in Moltmann’s theology of baptism and discipleship,’ The way to a new, more authentic baptismal practice will be the way from infant to adult baptism. By adult baptism we mean the baptism of those who believe, are called and confess their faith.’[6] Moltmann uses the term ‘vocational baptism’ to emphasise that all those who are baptised are doing so in response to a ‘vocational’ call to ministry. The missiological nature of baptism is interconnected to the fact that the baptised community are made up of professing believers.[7]

Free Church Free State

As was indicated in the last section, a church that is living under the Rule of Christ is a church that is free from the dominance of and dependence upon the state. This is a baptist principle and it is a principle clearly seen in Moltmann’s work. The other side of the coin is equally true, that is for baptists and Moltmann the state must also be free from religious control and dominance.

As the church is called to be free so also it seeks its own image in civil society by derivation; society is to be free, free from religious compulsion, discrimination and penalty: free for the exercise of the informed conscience: free also from tyranny and domination.[8]

The concept of a society free from religious control does not, for Moltmann, mean that society is free from religious influence. Political engagement is at the heart of Moltmann’s theology of the church.

Historically the church has always had a political dimension. Whether it likes it or not, it represents a political factor, it is hence only a question of how presents itself as a political factor…A logical and consistent Christian discipleship always has logical political consequences…The expression ‘political church’ therefore does not mean a politicizing of the church. On the contrary it means a Christianization of the churches politics according to ‘the yardstick of the gospel of Christ’, as Zwingli put it.[9]

Moltmann’s theology of the church includes a theology of liberation that is intrinsically linked to mission and the outworking is that there will be political implications as a consequence of the church’s ‘mission’. This political aspect of the church’s mission is also taken up by baptists,

Although no church may align itself with one particular political party, it is important that Christians are involved in politics-both at the local and national level. Churches need to encourage members to belong to political parties of varying hue, and in this way act as salt in the world.[10]

However for baptists this political aspect of their collective expression is less clearly defined. Murray makes clear two things, one is that a church cannot be aligned with any one party, however in encouraging political activity he moves from collective language to individual language. In other words individual Christians are encouraged to engage in politics, however if Political action is the churches mission then the church needs to be equipped in how that is outworked collectively. In this aspect Moltmann’s thinking is more developed than the baptist position.

The Holy Spirit, Mission and the Priesthood of all believers

Regeneration is at the heart of the Christian community, the baptist community is pneumatological community. The church is called to seek the mind of Christ, it is not a democracy it is a Christocracy. The pneumatological emphasis in Moltmann’s work is central to his theology of the church. His Marxist leanings[11] mean that Moltmann’s theology of the Spirit is understood in terms of community. These two factors coupled together establish what can only be considered a solid baptist foundation. The key purpose in Moltmann’s book is to ‘rediscover the dimensions of pneumatology’, yet Moltmann’s pneumatology is not that of the individual mystics that emerge frequently in the history of the church, it is a pneumatology in outworked in community and mission.

Moltmann’s pneumatology has a charismatic emphasis that is thoroughly grounded in the priesthood of all believers and the Ministry of all Believers, ‘The whole congregation has ‘spiritual’ and charismatic gifts, not merely the ‘spiritual’ pastors.’[12] Moltmann’s church, like the baptists, is a gathered community. It is church that has been brought together because of God’s mission in the world. The church is called to participate in the mission of the Father; the Son sent by the Father, now sends the Spirit to the Church that the church may be sent into to the world.[13]

Mission embraces all activities that serve to liberate man from his slavery in the presence of the coming God, slavery which extends from economic necessity to God forsakenness. Evangelization is mission, but mission is not merely evangelization. In the missionary church the widow who does charitable works belongs to the same mission as the Bishop who leads the church, or the preacher of the gospel. [14]

While in theory baptists have recognised the Ministry of all Members, there has even in baptist circles emerged a clergy and lay people divide. There are several reasons for this, speaking purely of the Scottish context; the Scottish baptists have been influenced by the Scottish Presbyterian church. There is a common saying, ‘scratch a Scottish baptist and you will be sure to find a Scottish Presbyterian underneath’[15]. While this is folk humor, there is a degree of truth in it. The Scottish baptists have in a sense stood in the shadow of the more dominant and established Presbyterian national church. There has been a struggle for ‘recognition’ and much of their ministerial approach is modeled on the Presbyterian model. Like most of the reformation churches, they have never fully integrated Martin Luther’s priesthood of all believers in a way that fully embraces the Ministry of all Members. Without going into the deeper technicalities of this issue I will demonstrate this issue by using two illustrations. In most baptist churches behind the communion table are chairs for the elders and the minister, you recognise his chair because it is situated in the centre with the others at either side, it is larger than the others and resembles the likeness of a throne. The other illustration came to my attention when discussing the nature of ‘dog collars’ with a communist. I told him that the dog collar was a symbol of being yoked to Christ, that the minister has yoked himself to Christ in full time service. The communist responded by saying ‘are not all Christians yoked to Christ in full time service? Why should only the minister wear a dog collar?’ His point was powerful, revealing a tradition that is actually a power statement rather than a mark of humility and service. I think Moltmann with his socialist leanings would agree with the communist and not the baptists, and if the baptists practiced their theory they would too.

Communal Discernment

Moltmann’s charismatic understanding of the church flows into the area of communal discernment and government.

The church…is the earthly form of Christ’s Lordship…This can be called ‘Theocracy’ if the nature of the rule is entirely and solely identified from the way in which Christ freed men through his self giving. In that case, however, this Christocracy cannot be represented by a hierarchy separated from the people, but only through the brotherly order of a charismatic community.[16]

Moltmann’s communal discernment flows into his ecumenical observations and hopes.

The path of the ecumenical movement is, relatively speaking, clear enough: it is already leading from anathema to dialogue. In practical matters it has led further, from dialogue to co-operation…Even if the idea of an ecumenical all Christian council and the hope that Christianity will speak with one voice at such a council must still be called utopian, yet that Utopia is already shedding its light on the present wherever the divided churches are beginning to live in council with one another. To live in council means consulting other churches in questions affecting ones own church, and intervening in the questions of other churches. Living in council is not a life without conflicts, but it is a life which endures the conflicts in itself and tries to solve them. Up to now conflicts were often got out of the way by separating the disputing parties. But that is no solution. Solutions can only really be found for conflicts when one keeps the fellowship going, or picks it up again.[17]

The baptist churches have responded in mixed ways to the ecumenical movement, for the most part a degree of caution has been exercised.[18] This caution led to separation for many Scottish Baptists when the Roman Catholic Church formally became involved in the ecumenical movement. Yet, what Moltmann describes is in the context of ecumenicalism is nothing other than the baptist principle of Communal Discernment on an international and interdenominational scale. The hope that the various churches will ‘speak with one voice’ as a result of prayerful, thoughtful dialogue is a wider application of the baptist principle of the church seeking to discern the mind of Christ. The issue for baptists is wider than this one principle; this principle does not stand alone. Questions of identity which in turn are connected to matters of conscience are at stake for baptist participation in ecumenical activity. This brings us to further baptist distinctive that thus far have not really been considered.

Baptist Identity

The beginnings of the baptist movement lie in the context of reformation, separation and proclamations. In reformation they are a trajectory of the protestant reformation.[19] In separation they sought to build afresh on the foundation of the New Testament pattern found in the pages of scripture. Deeply influenced by the puritans they hoped to return to primitive Christianity that was based upon a ‘return to scripture beyond corruptions of tradition, to reapropriate God’s authentic Word and will for the church’.[20] In regards to proclamation there was a clear conviction as to what did and what did not constitute the New Testament gospel.

Let the baptist union of Scotland arise and gird itself to work, sending faithful preachers two and two into every country and town in Scotland, to preach a pure gospel and to restore New Testament institutions and primitive Christianity.[21]

The early baptists derived their convictions from a reading of the scriptures and an observation of their current context. They were dissenters in a political sense and in an ecclesiological sense. The saw their context and they saw that it did not measure up to scripture, living under the Rule of Christ, they sought to conform their lives to scripture in spite of the personal cost. Wright correctly notes that the early baptists were evangelical in their nature. ‘Baptists are evangelicals- of that there should be no doubt. For this reason Baptist identity and evangelical identity are closely related issues.[22]

Wright further draws attention to the contemporary ambiguity of what it means to be evangelical,[23] this ‘crisis’ of the evangelical identity is something that is affecting all evangelical churches. Yet if, as Wright suggests, that the nature of baptist identity is so intermarried to evangelical identity, this in turn has implications for contemporary baptists and even the theology set forth by Moltmann. In the light of Wright’s statement, the baptist distinctives thus far discussed do not stand alone but they infact only stand if they remain upon the evangelical foundation that they were built upon.

I mentioned previously that the early Baptists read the scripture and observed their context. They concluded that their context was out of touch with scripture and this led to a radical response. It led to a seperationist stance that withdrew from religious and political systems that sought o dominate their freedom of conscience. They developed the reformation by creating counter communities that enabled biblical faithfulness in the midst of the wider ecclesiological biblical compromise and they sought the transformation of society through a proclamation of the word of God and the gospel of Christ. I would argue that much of today’s baptist and evangelical church and also much of Moltmann’s theology, is infact the opposite of a genuine baptist approach. Instead of aligning themselves up with scripture in the light of cultural opposition, they are instead redefining scripture in-order to fit with the wider culture.

Examples of this are clearly seen by an observation of Moltmann’s approach to theology, his German context in the midst of the war has deeply shaped his views. Moltmann begins with experience and then develops theology. His ecumenical emphasis on church unity completely parallels the wider postmodern equivalent that dominates much of wider societies thinking. Wrights book that deals with the current issue of homosexuality adopts a position that is more informed by cultural opinion and pressure than it is by the scriptures.[24] The theological justification in for Moltmann’s ecumenical approach is an appeal for a Christological Ecclesiology[25] and Wrights justification for his position is an appeal for a Christological hermeneutic.[26] For the church context, positions that once divided are now to be celebrated as traditions reflecting rich diversity and promoting community.[27] In other words, what was once considered important truths not to be compromised, are free to be held, but to be held in that church context and not to be considered binding on others. This is the congregational postmodern parallel of ‘your truth is only your truth’. For the interpretation of Scripture, the way is open for believers to pick and chose what is and what is not authoritive based on their own understanding of Jesus Christ. The problem with this is that it is the scriptures that inform us of the nature of Jesus Christ and as soon as they are devalued through a rejection of authority then they ultimately cease to instruct us about Christ in any authoritive way. This process doesn’t happen immediately, those who adopt this approach initially often have enough theological strength to remain within certain boundaries, however those who follow in their footsteps will soon find themselves on sinking sand.

In effect my argument is that Moltmann for the most part reflects a baptist approach to church, however contemporary questions for baptists are emerging that are related to their identity as evangelicals. Evangelicals across the board are undergoing this experience and baptists are no different. If evangelicalism is so interconnected to baptist identity as Wright argues and if evangelical identity is largely drawn from the authority of the scriptures then baptists themselves are in the process of an identity crisis. Moltmann has chosen his path in this area and holds out a clear position; his work is a clear example of Christological hermeneutics. His other works on the Trinity and the cross are examples of a theology that arises from a Christological Hermeneutic. While it would not be true to say that Moltmann is not a protestant theologian it would also not be true to say that Moltmann is an evangelical theologian.

I am aware of the complexities surrounding the issues of Jesus the Word as the final authority and scripture as final authority. I am aware that this essay does not allow the space for a detailed critique and analysis of the doctrine. However within the context of this work it is safe to say that emphasising Jesus as the final authority over and above the written word as the final authority is the basis for the ‘Christological hermeneutic’. The written word is now understood in different terms, in the past ‘Conservative evangelicalism has had a tendency to argue theological issues by giving careful attention to the biblical texts on any given issue on the assumption that all texts carry equal authority as the word of God and that interpretive distinctions made on the basis of ‘who said what’ are invalid…Paul carries as much authority as Jesus because he speaks under the inspiration of the same Spirit.’[28]

Regarding this issue there are several issues that are clear; 1) Wright would favor a Christological hermeneutic over and against the traditional evangelical position, 2) Moltmann would also take this approach, 3) The basis of the Union which states that Jesus as the final authority has created a space where this approach can take root and flourish, 4) many baptist churches within the union would not take this new position and if they understood it would have serious concerns about it. 5) Early baptists would have been of the traditional position, [29]6) the church universal by and large, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church has understood the whole of scripture to be the absolute word of God. [30]

Conclusion

Overall Moltmann’s book reflects the baptist way of being the church of Jesus Christ; this has been demonstrated by appealing to all the key areas of baptist distinctives. Where there is a departure in Moltmann, is in regards to the hermeneutical approach to scripture and his relationship to evangelicalism. Evangelicalism tends to have a strong individual emphasis whereas Moltmann’s theology is a theology of community; baptists in this sense are torn in two directions for they have a strong communal emphasis and a strong emphasis on individual salvation.

Bibilography

Bercott, David, A Dictionary of early Christian Beliefs, (USA, Hendrickson 1998).

Fisher, J.S, Impelled by Faith: A Short History f the Baptists in Scotland, (Glasgow, Campsie, 1996).

Milne, Bruce, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief, (England, IVP, 1982).

Moltmann, Jurgen, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, (UK, SCM Press, 1977) p5.

Murray, Paul Beasley, Radical Believers: The Baptist Way of being the Church, (UK, BUGB, 1992).

Wright, Nigel G, Free Church Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision, (UK, Paternoster, 2005)

Wright, Nigel G, New Baptists New Agenda, (UK, Paternoster, 2002).

Articles

The 1689, A Faith to Confess, (UK, Carey, 1990).

Blythe, Stuart, Baptist Practices: Being Church, (Baptist Identity Lecture Semester two 2007).