Hi folks,

Still thinking about the postmodern rejection of totalitarian language, I just read Michael Frost’s thought provoking article in Alive Magazine, June 2002, pp 4-7. The article, “Sexual Abuse of the Church”, is largely about the danger of placing clergy on a pedestal, but along the way he makes some interesting points about language. I’m sure neither he nor Stephen Baxter will mind if I extract a few of the thoughts, but do get hold of a copy and read it for yourself!

“The whole idea of ordination needs a rethink. The term itself comes from a Roman idea. In the Roman world, society was divided into two classes: the ordo and the plebs. The ruling class was separated from ordinary citizens, and ordo/ordinare denoted the ruling class. This is not disimilar to the ancient Greek separation of clergy and laity. Our term, clergy, comes from the Greek kleroi, who were magistrates in a Greek city-state. The very roots of the idea of an ordained clergy come from ancient civic requirements for a ruling elite.”

“… The radical early church completely subverted the ancient idea of ordo and plebs and sought to fashion an astonishingly equitable alternative community.”

“The way the church and the media talk about the issue of sexual abuse betrays the fundamentally unbiblical way we have enshrined church leadership. Both the church itself and society at large refer to young people being abused by the church, What assumption does this phrase betray? That the priesthood is the church and that 14-year old members of the church are not! …”

I know that we Baptists have a very different understanding of priesthood (incuding the priesthood of all believers) than does the media and much of the rest of the church. However, I suspect that our practice does not always reflect that understanding. More importantly, if we place such radically different understanding on language which the rest of the world will never see in that way, then surely we do ourselves, our movement, and the world a great disservice in not abandoning that debased language and adopting terminology that actually means something lifegiving today! We were once called “The Radicals”. At some time before that we WERE radicals. How radical are we willing to be in this matter in the interests of communicating a clear gospel? Or do we consider solidarity with the whole church community to necessarily include not wanting to appear different from them in any way, even in ways of sinning against the powerless? Surely out of love we might point to another way.

Food for thought? I hope so.

Mal Dow

——————————————————————- Beth Tephillah Ministry Centre and Williamstown Baptist Church. Pastors Malcolm & Diana Dow http://www.bethtephillah.com