Will we like what we see - and where will it take us?

Since joining the taskforce on Baptist Identity I have been going back and forth in my mind about the whole point of this endeavour. I read the entries on the blog and am persuaded by the systematic articulation of Baptist distinctives. What I can’t be clear about is whether this need to articulate our identity is a sign of weakness or strength.

Perhaps if the timing of our convening was at some other juncture in history I may not be squirming quite so much about what we are doing. However, I can’t divorce my thinking from the fact that we are in a context of significant religious revisionism. Our religious neighbours are engaged in, on the one hand, some very public displays of strength and, on the other, enduring intense and unflattering scrutiny.

The issue of strong sense of identity amongst our Anglican brothers and sisters has been alluded to in previous blogs. However, as a not disinterested observer of things Anglican in Sydney, I’m starting to think that conflict and disunity might be the identifying feature of Sydney Anglicanism. Across the Sydney Diocese not all churches are so staunchly in the evangelical fold as might be thought, and the handful of practising “High Anglican” churches within the Sydney diocese is increasingly under siege.

The Anglicans have a dominance on the major Sydney university campuses that is the envy of other denominations. However, it is a mistake to think that their strength derives from a sense of unity. The two organisations, Campus Bible Study (CBS) on the University of NSW campus, and the Evangelical Union (EU) on the University of Sydney campus, are culturally distinct movements. CBS is supported by St Matthias Anglican Church, and EU by St Barnabas, Broadway. They each adopt the tone of their supporting churches, EU being the more moderate of the two groups.

This groping has implications for theological training. Moore College is situated in the grounds of the University if Sydney but owes its cultural tone to the St Matthias movement. Theological students who are graduates from Sydney University can find themselves feeling not-quite-at-home in their own denominational college located in the grounds of their old university.

Sydney Anglicans have a habit of identifying themselves as just that. They are “Sydney Anglicans”. This is a shorthand to say the they are evangelical and Bible-believing as opposed to other kinds of Anglicans. I am yet to hear a Kenyan or Nigerian Anglican identify him or herself as a “Sydney Anglican” but in the terms defined by its users it would make perfect if not confusing sense. More significantly, however, the description is implicitly divisive. It accepts the need to define oneself in opposition to those who differ from the users position. With the advent of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans it now seems that “Sydney Anglicans” have been able to export their particular brand of divisiveness and conflict worldwide .It is true that the Anglicans have a strong identity but my sense is that their identity, characterised by conflict and exclusion, holds with in it the source of its own unravelling.

This week in Sydney the Catholics are proudly declaring their identity. At one and the same time they are on display for all the right reasons and all the wrong reasons. The confidence and hubris required to organise an international event calling pilgrims from all over the world are exactly the qualities that blind organisations to the notion that directing all this attention to itself may invite scrutiny on areas they don’t wish to reveal.

There have been as many articles in the paper about falling church attendances, aging congregations, scandals and a dearth of priests as there have been about exciting and inspirational events. Archbishop Pell would far rather talk about the excitement of young people taking time out of their live to pursue spiritual goals (and I’d rather hear about that too). Instead, however, he is forced (and rightly so) to answer questions about the church’s failure (yet again) to deal with issues of sexual abuse by the priesthood.

I guess my point is this. Does the issue of identity only become important when your organisation is under threat? As Steve Bartlett pointed out in a Directions 2012 Update (“Let’s Light a Fire”) our denomination is in trouble. Our denominational growth is not keeping p with population growth. People are not coming to faith . The church is less and less successful in engaging with our culture. We do get the feeling sometimes that we are witnessing the closing days of western Christianity.

How does articulating a better sense of who we are help us deal with this problem? We need to avoid the excesses of both the Anglicans and the Catholics. Firstly, we will not want to use our insights solely to identify those who differ from us, yet still identify themselves as Baptists, as the enemy. This is always a difficult issue for Baptists. We don’t do toleration well. We are better at schism. However, we do have a tradition and culture that honours and fosters the expression of Christian freedom. Our style of church governance and our light-handed denomination structures allow for diversity in ministry that a more legislative approach to church practice does not.

Secondly we need to avoid grand public gestures that are intended to exude optimism yet, because of their hollowness, have a more-than-slightly-desperate air to them. We may find that, as a taskforce, the pithy, dare I say it the sexy, one-liner about what it is to be Baptist may elude us.

I am hoping that we can lift the lid on our identity and understand ourselves sufficiently so as to contribute to a greater sense of unity and to be a guide our united endeavours in ways that are clearly Baptist.

Kristine Morrison is a midwife and member of the Social Issues Committee of the Baptist Union of NSW. She attends Ashfield Baptist Church, Sydney.