Norwich Central Baptist Church

A few years ago (2003) I wrote a short article (for a now defunct church magazine) on the pseudo gothic architecture of Dereham Road Baptist Church (The building used by one of the churches that merged to form Norwich Central Baptist church). In that article I wrote of Dereham Baptist Church and its Baptist builders:

Their aping of establishment architecture was a sign that they were more at ease with and better integrated into the wider culture than we are. Their churches were chiefly preaching centres serving a much more public life oriented Christianity.

Like the mammals of saurian times, faith has often been unable to venture beyond the deep recesses of an intensely private life. Today, the "Sermon in Stone" that is DRBC hardly seems a safe way to express faith and it is unlikely to elicit the respect of today's touchy-feeley Christians for whom it will not register as a product of authentic heartfelt religion

However, the church, now somewhat marginalised, is much less part of the trappings of civic society than it used to be and has had to re-adapt. The community church has superseded the municipal church, and yet the community church often has little choice but to make best use of an architectural legacy. We may feel more at home with that legacy if we try to judge it on its own terms. To the Christians of its day the quasi-civic architecture of DRBC was clearly significant and betrayed a pride in their public connections, connections that for us are all too thin on the ground.

The general idea I tried to express here was that in those days the non-conformist church felt itself to be part of the civic establishment, and this showed in their use of civic architecture. In the case of DRBC they used the gothic style, but often the “secular” classical style was also co-opted to express how Christians felt about their role and position is society; they didn’t think of themselves as a marginalized pressure group or social charity on the edge of an otherwise alien culture but saw their role as much needed Christian salt well, qualified to help run society. They identified with their society and to some extent they were that society.

The conclusions I drew in 2003 have since been corroborated in my mind by a recent delving into the archive of back copies of St Mary’s church magazine. I randomly selected the year 1939, opened up the first page of the January edition and this is what I read:

…we take it as recognition of the place the free churches fill in the life of the community and the service rendered by them to the public well being…. Have made a notable contribution to the moral, educational and spiritual welfare of this city… St Mary’s honourable association with the Sheriff… George White MP…. eight members have filled the office of Mayor….public servant…..President Lincoln…

This stuff sounds so much like parts of America today*. But over here? Things, of course, have changed. In my original article I contrasted the “municipal church” of the past with the “community church” of today, but I added a footnote saying that I really wasn’t sure just what the so called “community church” was:

I am sure it means something, if only to express the self image and aspirations of churches groping to find an identity and role as they attempt to adapt to changed and changing circumstances. My use of the term “Community Church” doesn’t mean to say that I know what it means; I am attempting to understand this self proclaimed role of contemporary churches by contrasting it with something that it certainly is not, namely, the old style municipal church.

“Adapting to changed and changing circumstances…” is probably the key point here. But as Christians adapt to changed circumstances they may be egotistical enough to think that their contemporary expression of church is not a mere adaptation to the current milieu but the restoration of a timeless blueprint and the only way of doing church. In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that today’s marginalized church probably finds itself in circumstances similar to those of the early emerging church. This may help explain why some contemporary Christians connect with the emerging church of the first century and find a ready expression by doing things the “New Testament way”. But human restorationist conceits may underrate those who in times past did their emerging church differently in order to adapt to the opportunities society provided in their day.



* Footnote
Interestingly evidence suggests that St Mary’s Baptist church had sympathy for the Americans in the war of independence. In 1781 Rees David, minister of St Mary’s Baptist church, preached a sermon attacking the war against the Americans.

As a principle in public relations it is a good idea to give people the benefit of the doubt and to be prepared to at least to give an initial qualified acceptance to those Christians who believe they have had some blessing or revelation from God. So, when the Bedford Baptist group arrived at Dereham Road Baptist church in the early spring of 1995 I thought it important that nothing be ruled out in an off hand manner and felt it right to show them the courtesy of being prepared to receive whatever they thought God saw fit to make them agents of. After all, in the architecture of his church Christians are the living stones of a spiritual house, a holy priesthood ministering to one another in spite of human defect. And so I submitted myself to their prayers, although with no observable effect.

"No observable effect" was, except in a handful of cases, the rule that day, and the acclaimed hallmarks of the "Toronto blessing", at least in quantity, were absent; there was no mass loss of balance, little, if any, hysterical laughter and crying, and absolutely no "old McDonaldisms". There was one person who stood up and was prayed over for a long time, the intention being that he would eventually collapse under the wind of the Spirit. To all appearances one of the Bedford assistants started to get impatient with this person, and proceeded to flap his hands up and down in front of the subject as if the small wind thus created would help achieve what they were looking for. When the subject, who had closed eyes and outstretched hands (a position, which if maintained, is not conducive to good balance), eventually did keel over, it was not really a surprise, and I wondered how that person managed to keep standing for so long.

As a principle of self protection, it is a good idea that one's acceptance of the claims of Christian subcultures is always qualified, and if such cultures fail to claim the benefit of the doubt and fail to earn respect, then there is an even chance that there is something wrong with them. Of course, there is an even chance that one's assessment is at fault, but the point here is that no one is so privileged that they are excepted from having to prove themselves. But herein lies the rub for many vendors of blessing and quasi cult Christian groups, because for them an attitude where the benefit of the doubt is given against a background of qualified acceptance is simply not considered enough ("benefit of the doubt ? - you shouldn't have any doubts !"), and anything less than an a-priori unqualified proactive acceptance of their claims is seized on to explain away why things don't work out in the way they expect. Unless it all happens in the way they say it should, happen you fail to get their religious respect and may even be despised. In particular there is often a deep suspicion of positive, convinced, and secure Christian living independent of their means and method of blessing as, of course, they believe that it must all happen in the way they understand or via their ministries. It is upon an ethos of this sort that many "holy spirit "gnosis ministries are founded and nowadays, once I detect it I usually rule them out because, frankly, experience has taught me that you just cannot win with such people.

Therefore, as far as I personally was concerned, the Toronto Blessing, under the agency of Bedford, had a window of opportunity between two principles; one principle requiring an initial positive response, a kind of being prepared to give it a generous try, and the other stipulating that patience is not unlimited because anything coming via human agency must prove itself. Both with deference to these principles and with hindsight I now have to admit, however, that although I believe I gave Toronto-ism a fair hearing, my eventual overall impressions of it were not good. Several years after its beginning it was difficult to ascertain if, amid the gains and losses, there was in fact a net gain of anything except disillusionment. Perhaps there may have been something in it at the beginning (and I wouldn't want to rule it out absolutely), but let me say this; if there was something in it then the Christian subculture which promulgated it did such a bad marketing job that I found it impossible to tell.

For my own part I have to say that if there was a positive side to the Bedford Blessing they did not only failed to prove this to me but they also, in general, failed to communicate to me at all in a way that I understood or on a level that met me where I was at. They would, of course, be likely to see this as my fault rather than their own. But herein lies the problem, because it is often true that if the latest concept in blessing is not seen to be received it seems that the vendors of blessing will not let things lie and simply accept that God's time and place is not yet, but instead are inclined to witch hunt. It is then not advisable to reveal a less than wholly uncritical attitude as this will seem to explain the ineffectiveness of their ministry, and be taken as a sign of some deep seated spiritual blockage that needs exorcism; for it seems that they find it difficult to have a healthy regard for any faith they consider to be uninitiated into the secrets of the Holy Spirit as they understand them. Their self satisfaction leads them to carelessly squander the chance of acceptance they are given; they excuse themselves from the duty of earning respect and the responsibility of proving their worth by faulting instead those who fail to respond to their ministry, thus unintentionally reinforcing some of the very reservations they would criticise. The result is a feedback cycle that needlessly strains loyalties, alienates and may even lead to deep enmities.

Sometimes I feel that there is some awful joke being perpetrated upon the church that plays on peoples insecurities and uncertainties about the nature of God, what he can do, and his claims on us. These uncertainties are exploited by an archetypical system of human religious relationships to subtly cast doubt on the Christian’s independent ability to judge and discern, and to help ease the introduction of a culture of childish dependence. The protective value of critical reservations are thus confiscated amid hints that such are somehow anti-faith and anti-God. And so the aim is to beat down bit by bit the spiritual immune system as the tasks the Christian is asked to perform and what the Christian is asked to believe, slowly get more and more insane, until eventually he or she is on all fours barking like a dog.

c. T. V. Reeves June 1997

THE BEDFORD BLESSING PART 3: SWEET FORGETFULNESS AND SUBLIMATION

Continuing my series on the arrival of the 1995 "Bedford Blessing" at Dereham Road Baptist Church. This series was written in 1997, but only now has been released for general viewing.


There is nothing in a name but an expression for what something is, and whether you called them an acting priesthood or not, those Bedford Baptists were what they were, and what they were was apparently archetypical. But just how much of the old priestly archetype was actually, and no doubt unknowingly, being rehashed on that day at Dereham road Baptist church in the early spring of AD 1995 is difficult to tell, because if it was, then it was all very subliminal and heavily encrypted. History never truly repeats itself because there is always some feedback from the past. A man may learn from experience and yet still be tempted into old ways of doing things. He thus satiates both the temptation and the demands of learning by a combination of energy redirection, and behavioural modification that include the use of terms, labels and language that dress up his behaviour in a different guise. He is, however, always walking on the edge, and is in constant danger of deceiving himself and fulfilling his temptation directly. On that early spring day of 1995 I saw an analogous situation; the gravitational draw of ancient religious relations was acting, or at least trying to act; ethereal lighter than air high passion spiritual patter was bubbling to the top; familiar old motifs were presented in a modified guise: “Gnosis” became “God’s touch”, “Inner light” became “heart knowledge”, Priestly bearing became Spiritual Authority. It is really, however, all a matter of degree and balance. Each of these religious motifs may have a place in a genuine Christian culture, but if the balance is lost over these things it starts to show. The ministers of blessing then become imparters of gnosis and a closed shop who claim sole agency, seeing in their own expression of faith the prime focus and source of God’s work and blessing. They then show an unwillingness to engage in equitable and reciprocal relations with those whose blessings are different from their own, much preferring to relate, like religious salesman, by offering their priestly services. They exploit the demands created by spiritual vulnerability, and fulfil the need for patriarchal leadership of close Christian community in a remnant church whose role is now far less integrated with the larger society. They have a sharp eye for the spiritual inadequacy and flaw that creates the need for their services amongst those they seek to lead and those who may sometimes confer upon them a status not unlike that of the priestly patriarchs of old. For these patriarchs do not chose their role themselves; it is chosen for them by those who choose to be lead by them. They are an evolutionary product of the sea of faith, being selected, at times unwillingly, by an unsettling modern spiritual environment where people are once again tempted to look to the chancellery for authority, blessing, and above all religious security. This, then, is one facet of today's spiritual ethos. It is one that works. It is one that has not so much been consciously selected for as it is what is left when other candidates for selection have failed; it is an an island of survival in a sea of failure.

THE BEDFORD BLESSING PART 2: THE PRIESTHOOD!


Continuing my series on the arrival of the 1995 "Bedford Blessing" at Dereham Road Baptist Church. This series was written in 1997, but only now has been released for general viewing.

The Priesthood ! - A means, sometimes the means by which one can relate to God or by which blessing may come. Priesthoods are an ancient spiritual architecture, not one cast in stone or brick, but in the systems of relations between leaders and the lead. It is an architecture which exploits a rich complex of emotions and motif, and which has helped stabilise the relations between the shepherds and the sheep down untold ages. Mystique, gnosis, patriarchy, autocratic authority, spiritual inferiority, nervous expectancy, dependency, submission. These are some of the elements of the religious complex at whose heart is the underlying fear of the numinous and of the awe inspiring, holy, glorious and, without Christ, nameless God, from whose awful light the guilty seek safe refuge. In the stumbling, hesitant, and tense relations humanity naturally has with a holy God, any one able to confidently take up the dangerous task of interfacing with the divine is a boon, and attracts like a magnet the religiously insecure. Priesthoods in their various shapes and sizes, can be big business. But it is not all bad. Given the problems man has had relating to God, priesthoods have, in times past, been a legitimate and sometimes an only way to relate to God, and a means of blessing. They are, however, a way fraught with difficulty and the possibility of corruption. Human agency is always fraught with difficulty and the possibility of corruption as the Israelites discovered when Kings were anointed over them. But given the terrible state Israel had got itself into by the end of the Judges period it had little to lose. In fact they may not have even had a choice here: Given their moral and political condition, Israel ‘s desire to become a kingdom was less plan B than it was plan A, the fault being not so much in the plan itself but in the conditions which engendered it; it was the next logical step forward given their condition. They also experienced that peculiarly human dilemma of having to choose solutions to problems that themselves had problems. And so it is with human priesthoods. The general lesson is this: The givens of the human predicament are met with plans and covenants that, with varying degrees of effectiveness, treat the human condition, taking it forward from where it is; but given the sin of man, covenants employing human agency, whether of kings or of priests, are only a pattern and shadow of heavenly things, and therefore must decay and grow old and eventually pass away to be replaced by a covenant of divine agency; a perfect plan meeting the imperfect precondition just where it is: “In those days .. I will put My law in their mind and write them in their hearts.... And they shall no more teach one another, saying know the Lord - for all shall know Me from the least of them to the greatest of them”.

As a result of direct inquiries I intend to produce, at some stage, a position statement regarding my views on Christianity. However, I am currently absorbed with one two other matters that I am following up; hence this promissory note.