General Secretary

“. . . a common faith, working by a common love, producing a common service and issuing in a common joy.”

minded bodies can operate without a defining theological center in their self- understanding. May BWA never depart so far from the

values reflected in its origins – values well portrayed in its original constitution – as to de-emphasize the ecclesial roots of its holistic mission and vision. The second concern is the extent to which Baptists, with their

Guarding Against Secularizing BAPTIST WORK AND MISSION

By Neville Callam

The following are excerpts of a report to the BWA Executive Committee in March.

T certain

he emergence of BReaD has introduced significant cause for concern within the worldwide Baptist family.

fundamental theological

There are issues

that may need to be considered. At least two theological implications of BReaD’s emergence within the BWA are noteworthy. The first has to do with the ascendancy of the church’s accommodation to culture, which is reflected in the adoption of a secular business model by an ecclesial organization.

of the reality of the church, this approach may

Based on an instrumental understanding be

understood as prioritizing

efficiency of delivery of help to people in need over the integrity of the church’s holistic mission. The emerging model does not find its raison-d’être in the church’s understanding of its role as a partner in the mission of God whose salvific purpose it is called to proclaim in word and deed. Instead, this model finds its energy in partnership among like-minded social agencies that aim at certain deliverables. These like-

16 BAPTIST WORLD MAGAZINE

understanding in the organization’s early years. In a memorable presidential address delivered during the Second Baptist World Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, in 1911, John Clifford shared his views on the nature and purpose of the BWA. Clifford understood

the in theological, traditional

soteriology, may endanger the integrity of the worldwide family as a Christian World Communion by emphatically asserting an anthropocentric, rather than a Trinitarian and communitarian, focus in the way they work together. The readiness to segregate the church’s

social ministry from its ecclesial center exemplifies how human agency may be advanced

without acknowledging its

dependence on divine empowerment as a consciously acknowledged motivation and source of empowerment that can be channeled through denominational agency. This tendency is especially noticeable in contexts in which postmodernism is strong. It also appears in places where the church’s capacity to take itself seriously by positively affirming the pneumatological center of its life as the source and energy behind its operation is under threat. This capacity is constantly being undermined by a propensity for the church to be overlooked or dismissed by a vast swathe of the populace in the centers where it serves.

May BWA never turn aside from its vocation to model a denominational family that prizes the bonds of community that it shares as a sign of the perichoretic relations within the Trinity. May we also recognize the indispensability of mutual accountability to authentic community life by those who live in Christ. Furthermore, may divisions among the family based on material wealth and supposed expertise never yield cleavages that are hospitable to paternalistic values and destructive of global community solidarity.

BWA Constituent Members Working Together

much from reflection on the ways in which Baptists

the BWA’s self-

Contemporary Baptists stand to gain characterized

rather than merely

sociological, terms. He described the BWA as “the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace that has been working within us with energy and vitality.” Clifford characterized the relationships shared within the BWA as “fellowship with the Father and with the Son.”

“Our impulse,” Clifford said, “comes from a common faith, working by a common love, producing a common service and issuing in a common joy.” Celebrating union”

the that “indissoluble another, Clifford called spiritual

Baptists share with one on congress

attendees to “stand true [and] be faithful to Christ and his holy gospel and so help to lead the whole world into the light and glory of [God’s] redeeming love.” To a certain extent, recent formulations

of BWA’s understanding of its nature and mission represent a departure from the original vision. When it based its conclusions concerning BWA’s priorities on a poll of popular Baptist the BWA 21st not

have adopted

Century Committee may the

best

opinion, possible

approach. In working out the details of the organization’s goals, the adoption of a sociological, rather than a theological, methodology could have compromised BWA’s integrity as an ecclesial body. It did not allow BWA’s ecclesiological density to serve as the foundation for the ordering of BWA’s life. Instead, the priorities of this ecclesial organization were predicated too much on sociological assumptions. Not surprisingly, when the findings of the 21st

routinized in the life of the BWA, clusters of commitment

Century Committee were were introduced to

express BWA’s priority concerns. For some interpreters, the priorities that were delineated in terms of specific clusters are perceived in organizational terms. They are understood as being related, not primarily

BWA