CHRISTMAS 1939….

During this season of dark nights, sharp viewing conditions and twinkling Christmas lights, my mind’s eye turns to the stars of deep space. It is appropriate then that during my perusal of the December editions of St Mary’s Baptist church magazine I should find the following article written by St Mary’s minister Rev Gilbert Laws, D.D. The date is December 1939, about 3 months after the declaration of war with Germany. I think the article should speak for itself so here it is in its entirety:

Click to enlarge

My Comments

Given the darkness of those days in more sense than one, perhaps Laws’ mind turned to the heavens in an attempt get a perspective on the affairs of men. Or perhaps whilst pondering the evil of his times he wondered if God was really mindful of man. Laws remarks on the paradox that the modern Christian theist faces given man’s ever increasing understanding of his context; the familiar paradox arising out of a generalized form of Copernicanism: The vastness of the universe revealed by science cuts across any notion that man is the physical center to that universe. There is, as Laws points out, absolutely nothing special about the cosmic situation of man. This sets up a paradox for Biblical theists like Laws because, says Laws “ ...the Bible speaks as if man were the centre of the universe, as if things existed for his sake, and derived their meaning from his existence”. But for Laws what offsets these huge distances and restores the specialness of man is that “there is something in man that over-balances mere magnitude, however vast” and that something according to Laws is the self conscious sentience of man: “Man is able to look up and say ‘I’ which no sun or star or other material created material thing could ever say. Moreover, man in looking up is able to say ‘Thou’ to God…”.

The physical universe as Gilbert Laws conceived it: vast and impersonal.

Leaving aside the deep philosophical questions over whether man’s consciousness really does restore asymmetry to the universe by justifying the assignment of a pre-Copernican specialness to man, what I would like to draw attention to here is that nowhere does Laws attack the science of his day. He assumes the universe is old: “He [Man] dwells on one speck of a world and even so is a late-comer on it, for as the testimony of the rocks declares, it was a world of life for uncounted centuries before man appeared at all”. He also assumes the Earth is a natural product of the solar system: “Our Earth is but a child of the Sun, a speck at one time flung out of that molten mass into space..” Laws raises no anti-evolution sentiments when he has the opportunity to: “….now cooled enough for the appearance of life upon it, and so fitted through uncounted years, for man’s abode.” There may be life on other planets suggests Laws: “Other children also our sun has, though whether they have life upon them we do not know. Moreover our sun is but one of millions of suns… immeasurably greater many of them than the sun round which our little world revolves.”

It seems then that there is no implicit assumption on Laws part that science is fundamentally anti-Christian; he takes the findings of science on board at least tentatively. In the milieu of his day there appears to be no need to even so much as defend science’s findings and status, let alone attack science as an anti-Christ conspiracy. As a respected leader of a civic church Laws belonged to no marginalized sect alienated from the rest of society and thus had no reason to question science; if anything the Baptists he represented were very much part of the establishment. What concerns Laws’ most is not the validity of science’s findings, but just what light they throw on the human predicament should those findings prove to be true. And yet reading the church magazines of Laws’ day there is nothing to suggest that these Baptists where anything other than Biblically orthodox.

Laws attitude, of course, is in sharp contrast to many of today’s Christian ministers who have taken on board the anti-science fideism of fundamentalism. They have attempted to reestablish a physical pre-Copernicanism by shrinking cosmic dimensions in time and they even toy with geocentric models of the universe. My guess is that this stance is bound up with a church that is increasingly becoming marginalized. In fact in some quarters this church is morphing into a sect alienated from civic and academic life, a fertile ground for conspiracy theory. Consequently there is more reason for that church to set up alternative and even rival communities that sharply contrast themselves over against the rest of society, despising the science of that society. In Laws’ day the term “community church” would have been difficult to understand, for as I have said many church goers, even nonconformists, were part of the establishment and pillars of society. They were no separatist Mennonite-like pacifist community alienated from the bulk of society; they had moved into the social main stream and in 1939 St Mary’s Baptist church was mobilising its members to fight in the biggest war of all time, a war that took 50 million plus lives.

Fundamentalist geocentric cosmologies are a kind of cute cosy sentimental Kincadain Kitsch. But something has gone badly wrong in this picture – the cold scientific conspiracy looms in the background.

Laws knew a great deal more about science than the Biblical writer of Psalm 8 (or some of today’s willfully ignorant and shallow fundamentalists) who provided the text for his probing article of Christmas 1939. But Laws took comfort in the fact the Copernican paradox wasn’t just a discovery of the scientific age. For although the Biblical writers were part of an arcadian culture very different from our own industrial culture, they were nothing if frank about their doubts; with candor they brought these doubts out into the open. They too could say “Thou” to God and although they only had at their disposal naked eye astronomy and crude theoretical models when they looked up at the dark sky they nevertheless sensed the same intuitive diffidence engendered by the Copernican paradox*. But along with Gilbert Laws they also took it as an opportunity to glory in God’s grace: “For a single rose a field of thorns was spared”

Note 18/12/09

* When David wrote Psalm 8 he presumably had a geocentric vision of cosmology; it is therefore all the more interesting that the stars of the sky should provoke such a strong feeling of amazement at God's mindfulness of man. Today, with our modern cosmic vision, we perhaps impute far more meaning to David's words than he ever could. It is likely that these words were based more on intuition than they were a full appreciation of man's actual physical insignificance. In fact it is possible that the connection David was making was less to do with man's physical insignificance than it was to do with some deeply felt inspiration of God's majesty and immensity.

In this context it is interesting to note the reaction of some Young Earth Creationists to generalised Copernicanism. One YEC web site I have read entertains a cosmology where "The Earth is near the centre of the Universe". They go on to question the "Copernican Principle": "This principle, it is important to note, is not a conclusion of science, but an assumption thought to be valid. ". YEC theory is moving to a point where it sees the Christian faith bound up with a pre-Copernican cosmology. This is so counter current to the trends of mainstream science that it's no surprise that the YEC movement and conspiracy theorists are eying one another up with interest.

THE GHOSTS OF NCBC

Nowadays cleaning is the only job I can get. I used to be computer programmer but in the fast moving IT world of “here today and gone tomorrow” experience is constantly requiring a rebuild. Thus accumulated wisdom is of less value than it used to be. Nevertheless cleaning has its big compensations, especially if you are a cleaner at locations of historical interest. It means you get to savour that spooky out of hours mood in places where, for the imaginative mind, history comes back to haunt the living. I have to confess, however, that in spite of the strange things I hear said I’ve never seen, heard, smelt, or felt any “ghosts” even in some of Britain’s premier haunted sites (e.g. in a deserted Bodmin jail which got a five skull rating from the team of Living TV’s “Most haunted” series). But having convinced myself that subjectivity plays a large part in hauntings I was in for a shock one day whilst cleaning at NCBC near sunset. In the deserted church I saw a man surrounded by an eerie illumination carving a memorial stone:

NCBC's creepy memorial stones.

As if there is a measure of shame or distaste associated with the history and traditions of the Duke Street location I once heard a rumor that the removal of NCBC’s old stone memorials was mooted at a church council meeting. There was even a suggestion that someone had somehow construed these memorials as “Blasphemous”; yes my church does contain believers with that kind of paranoiac spirituality which sees terrible sin lurking wherever its own practices and beliefs are not observed. (Any truly inclusivist church must allow a quota of such people). So given this background I racked my brains in doubt; whoever in our church would initiate the carving of a post mortem memorial? I had heard no mention of this stone work in the services, so what then was I witnessing? Was this a ghost? Was it a vision of a past time? Was it a time slip?

A restorationist and rivalist mentality has pervaded large parts of EPC (Evangelical, Pentecostal, and Charismatic) Christianity. In reaction against the traditions of the fading and spent civic church the latter third of the 20th century saw a desire to rediscover fancied church blueprints and gnostic blessings in an endeavour restore a “New Testament” church. True, it has to be admitted that large tracts of history display a very mongrel church, a church swaying this way and that in winds of time. But late 20th century EPC church looked (naively I to my mind) for an anchored spiritual pedigree. It had no self conscious inkling that the styles, tastes and imperatives it hankered for may one day also pass and look quaintly arbitrary. Fortunately this ethos has not infected NCBC strongly but it has perhaps left it with a desire to disconnect from the past; its historical setting is accordingly undervalued impeding a proper evaluation of its own ephemeral place in history.

If Christianity means anything at all, then it cannot adopt the stance of the restorationist and rivivalist cults like the Mormons and JWs who write off large swathes of the past as beyond redemption. We must look back on previous Christian cultures with sympathy, making all due allowance for the environment in which they found themselves and had to do business with.

After a bit of investigation the situation over the memorial stone became clear. Legal obligations on the death of a spouse required her name to be carved beside that of her dead husband. The memorial stone concerned is none other than that for the late Mr. and Mrs. Charles Boardman Jewson who respectively served as Lord Mayor and Lady Mayoress of Norwich in 1965. They were the bastions of both civic society and the Duke St Baptist church.

Pillars of Church and Society: The Jewsons in 1965

What I had witnessed on that atmospheric late autumn afternoon was real, but no less incongruous and peculiar. Here was an event that had its cause rooted in the distant cultural past of the church – the fag end of the logic of that culture was still working itself out and I felt privileged to be in the right place at the right time to see what may well be one of the very last deeds of the spent civic church. The legal connection was no surprise to me; no one in NCBC would have initiated it otherwise. The deed, as it were, had to be a signal emanating from past, like the light of some distance galaxy; so in that sense I had witnessed a ghost!

An echo from the past: Memorial Stone addendum with mason's marking paint still in place.

SEVENTY YEARS AGO

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:

(click to enlarge)

…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.

This scene from the NCBC launch service of 8/6/03 looks to be a nostalgic throwback!

* 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.

THE PASTOR IS MY SHEPHERD.


After a quick investigation on the web I wasn't able to determine whether the above was a piece of satire or the real thing. Then I thought to myself shouldn't I be able to tell anyway? Fact is, I can't tell the difference and that's a little bit worrying. The man pictured here might have something to do with it.

THE BEDFORD BLESSING FINAL PART: FAILURE AND RECRIMINATION

The last in 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 view.

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 4: HISTORY MOVES ON BUT DOESN'T CHANGE.

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 view.



The scene on that day in the early spring of 1995 was, however, fascinating, and in many respects was replete with historical significance. History hadn’t stopped, but time was marching on there and then, presenting a new transition and a new puzzle, a puzzle that, if there is much more history, will one day be looked back on and seen as deeply mysterious. Historians of those future days will wish for a time machine in order to solve the enigma. But I needed no time machine; I was privileged to watch as history was deposited before my eyes. Here, in one environment, was the superposition of three layers of Christian culture: First, the mediaeval period, whose symbolism could just be discerned in the pseudo Gothic architecture; second, the pulpit period, and its “Logos culture” which had at its heart the ministry of words, the sermon and message; third, the post-modern crypto-priesthood period with its “holy spirit” culture, having at its heart the ministry of gnosis and God’s touch in a variety of forms. And the latter two periods vied with one another. But for all the differences between the hi-pulpits of hi-reason and the hi-priests of hi-mystique, they have, at their extremes, profound similarities. Behind the pulpit ethos, derived from the reformation, of a desire for the Bible to be a book open to and interpreted by all, is some kind of overcompensation; an overcompensation seen in the overpowering and central presence of the pulpits, overstated in their height and grandeur, like mini ramparts defending the Bible’s message against those who would attack it. Likewise, in those crypto-priesthoods, with their patriarchy, mystique, and their living pulpit of supporting followers, who hang onto their words not daring to fault them, we also find an overpowering and overstated presence engaged in some kind of overcompensation; an overcompensation seen in their tendency to closely identify the power of the Spirit with a gnosis that is experienced rather than learnt; an adaptive response, I believe, to help cope with a world that seems increasingly spiritually sterile, and with which those crypto-priesthoods have failed to come to terms with, or make sense of. The ironic truth is that they have never really understood or accepted the work of the Spirit of God, except perhaps when it appears to them as some novel kind of magic. In them has Christian thought sunk to its nadir: They cannot account for the depths of space; they cannot explain the meaning of atomism; they cannot throw light on evolutionary theory; they cannot bridge the gap between consciousness and matter. In short they can offer no explanations at all to a secular culture that ponders the meaning of these things. One may well ask, however, "Who can explain them ?". But our spiritual patriarchs are likely to claim that no explanations are required; fearful perhaps of a threat to their authority they prefer to believe that spirituality can in no way be a function of such things. Instead they bypass the difficulties these questions create by stressing the superiority of a deeply felt heart knowledge which is often caricatured as an almost a fidiest state of mind that should be independent of the products of the enlightenment. They therefore depict Christian experience as primarily finding its solace and resting place in a kind of gnosis which does not need to feed on reason. Thus is faith disconnected and therefore protected from the awkward challenges of the material world. With the loss of credibility in Christian rationales, both within the church and without, the pride in the ministry of words which those huge pulpits once represented has gone and their sheer size has become an embarrassment. The church has therefore withdrawn somewhat from the intellectual role it once played preferring instead to enhance the personal and social dimensions of its community life; something that in these days of social anonymity and disruption it can usefully engage in and retain self respect. The crypto-priesthoods, however, have diffused into niches created by the need for stable religious communities by inventing themselves as patriarchal overseers, their vaunted closeness to God offering a little bit of the divine on Earth and therefore, some might feel, a much needed sense of the presence of God.

But it may be even worse than this. At the extremes of the dichotomy of pulpit and priest the unspoken message one gets from both is the same: With their overstatement, their kudos and their overpowering and sometimes intimidating presence, that message is: "We give and you receive", "We teach and you learn". It is, therefore, in return, very hard to teach them anything, the spiritual traffic being mostly one way, and to attempt to open a dialogue with them is to put yourself up as a rival and to be the cause of an affront. They do not willingly and knowingly draw from traditions different from their own because they are usually unacceptable to them, whether or not those traditions have a positive faith in Christ. Here we have a demonstration of a very ironic yet important moral fact: Receiving is something that is actually harder than giving, a nigh on impossible task for the spiritually proud. It is, nevertheless a moral duty, just as, say, providing alms for the poor. But this is hardly a surprise: Christianity is, from the outset, more about receiving than giving, a religion that requires one to repent of sins and through Christ receive forgiveness and the Spirit of adoption by which we cry "Abba, Father". What need is there for anyone to tell us this and to administer this spirit to us when it is written: “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth ... it remains in you and you do not need anyone to teach you”.

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!

The origins of the Mormon 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”.

PENDING POSITION STATEMENT

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.

THE BEDFORD BLESSING
PART 1: THE COMING OF A PRIESTHOOD

In 1995 during a church family weekend an attempt was made by a visiting group of Baptists from Bedford to introduce Dereham Road Baptist church to the Toronto Blessing. A couple of years later in 1997 I wrote three essays in response to this weekend entitled respectively “High Pulpits”, “High Priests”, and “The Bedford Blessing”. The first essay, which was an analysis of the pulpit-centric architecture of Dereham Baptist Church, was circulated in 2000. However, the other two essays which concerned the actual “Blessing” at Dereham Road remained in my private collection ..... until now. I intend releasing the contents of these two essays in parts. Here is the first part.

History can be ruthless. The 70 year quantum of human life ensures that no one person's experience is measured in centuries, and so experience is constantly being destroyed and remade and old themes return as if they are new discoveries. In the sea of faith new spiritual life forms appear in response to changing spiritual environments and they are likely to have different attitudes to hi-pulpits and what they stand for. I saw one of these newer life forms one day in the early spring of AD 1995 when the Church on Dereham road had invited a Baptist minister from Bedford to speak for the day. This warm mannered bearded Bedford Baptist spoke intimately, if not profoundly on his theme, the "Father heart of God". He did not use the pulpit at any time during the day, but instead used the lectern at the side and below it, a position not unlike that of mediaeval times. At one point he indicated he would not be so presumptuous as to use the pulpit "up there", and his voice may have held a hint of contempt. Perhaps he knew that he needed nothing to stand on, because he stood for something else, for as the day developed a feeling grew on me, as it has done on other occasions, that I was seeing before my very eyes the formation and modern rediscovery of a spiritual ministry that recurs down the ages. Gone was the didactic logic and reason of the pulpit to be replaced by patriarchal expressions of feeling and warmth; one did not grapple with this stuff with the mind so much as with the emotions. In comparison to this “voice of the heart”, the sound of pulpit polemic would, to some, seem distant, and without the the ability to touch the inner most being. But the owner of that voice wasn't here primarily to talk, and a ministry of words was not what he was here to give; the purpose of his visit was to confer a blessing; a blessing that had its origins in a church in Toronto, Canada. The Baptist minister had recently visited this far flung church, and this visit no doubt made him better qualified to supervise the conferring of this blessing. Thus, in due time the assistants of the Baptist Minister moved amongst the congregation, praying over them for this strange blessing to come. It was as if they were custodians of some hidden spiritual power, holders of a mysterious gnosis that could not be imparted by expository logic, but only through their hands and upon those of sufficiently submissive and expectant attitude. I had seen it before; they were those kinds of believers who, apparently initiated into the inexpressible secrets of the Holy Spirit, are often sought out by those anxious for some deep experience of God, and those who fear divine disapproval if blessing is not claimed or taken. The ostensive qualities of the Bedford Baptist’s demeanour, their apparent agency to some mysterious blessing, the submissive, expectant, and dependent attitude required of those who were to receive the blessing were all things that were highly reminiscent. The members of religious cultures from the neolithic period to Salt Lake City would probably have been able to identify which class in their own communities this Bedford group most resembled and would have had little trouble finding a title for them: The Priesthood.

NCBC Guided Tour. Anglo Saxon Norwich

(The updated version of this tour can be downloaded from here: 
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzLwnl6qE_yeazNQQmsxaDJoZlE/view)

Below are my tour guide notes for the Wensum valley walk from Norwich Central Baptist Church to the Cathedral and back. These notes are likely to be enhanced as new information comes to light.

History: Looking back we see ourselves in perspective. We can see repeated themes and ask ourselves if our world view really works when seen in the context of a larger history. The enhanced experience sample provided by history can change the significance and meaning of our own smaller subset of experience.


• This is a picture of St Mary’s Baptist church (now NCBC) before it was destroyed by bombs in WWII
• Baptists came to this site in 1744, but built this structure under the popular and famous minister Joseph Kinghorn in 1811.
• Why does it have a classical Georgian facade? Why did the nonconformists fail to find satisfaction in the protestant Church of England?
• Why did the Norwich Baptists emerge during the 1600s?
• Why are the 1600s are such is a pivotal century for non-conformity in England?
• Answers to these questions take us right back to Saxon times
• Saxon government was closer to a kind of protection racket model whereas the feudal/serf system introduced by the Normans was closer to a slave model. This gave rise to Saxon discontent.
• Saxon England never really took to the feudal system and the Normans themselves become saxonised in attitude.
• This may have helped create the conditions needed for religious dissent, the rise of parliament, and the industrial revolution and science – the seeds of the modern world.
• The NCBC tour around old Norwich takes us around the ancient urban theatre that hosted the history behind these questions and issues.

SEE THIS LINK FOR A MAP OF ANGLO SAXON NORWICH

• The tour takes us along the Wensum valley to the Saxon centre of Norwich, Tombland a name which means “Open Space” or “Empty Space”
• In Saxon days Tombland was the centre and market area of Norwich
• The valley is densely pock marked with churches evidence that this part of the city is older than the higher parts of Norwich
• Major routes into the city still lead to Tombland: for example King street, Magdalen Street, St Benedict’s.
• Many of the street lines we will follow are Saxon.
• Notice that many street names in this area end in “gate . This ending is derived from the Danish word “Gade” which means “street” (“wick” or “vik” may also have Danish origins)
• The Normans (after 1066) moved the market place to the apron of the newly constructed castle.
• This castle dominated old Norwich in the valley: it was built to see and to be seen. These were the new men in charge.
• The current centre of Norwich (i.e. the castle area) was created by the Normans and not the Saxons


St Mary’s Plain
NCBC
• Baptists first came to this site in 1744 (at the start of industrial revolution) under John Stearne.
• Expansion of the congregation under the popular and famous Joseph Kinghorn resulted in Kinghorn laying the foundation stone of a Georgian building in 1811. (see picture above)
• Where is his grave?

St Mary’s Coslany Church
• Anglo-Saxon style tower, possibly the oldest in Norwich and may be pre-conquest.
• Note V shaped heads of tower widows as opposed to Romanesque arches.
• About 400 years separates tower and nave. Latter built in perpendicular style with large windows.
• Cotman was baptised here.
• The church became very dilapidated in Edward times. A newspaper correspondent described the church as being left to the mercy of “Stone throwing street urchins”. A sign that working class people had left the church in droves as a result of life style changes.

Zoar Chapel.
• Strict and particular Baptists separated from General Baptists in the 1600s.
• They were strong Calvinists: They believed Christ’s saving work only for those elected to be saved.
• The General Baptists believed all men have the potential to be saved.
• The Baptist Union was formed from a merger of the Particular Baptists and General Baptists.
• Zoar chapel are the strict and particular Calvinist dissenters who maintained a closed communion.
• Zoar in Hebrew means "small" or "insignificance." Zoar was the town of Lot’s refuge as he escaped from Sodom and Gomorrah. (NCBC = Sodom?!!)
• It is a coincidence that they are next door to us? Research has not been able to uncover a link.

Roman Roads
• A north-south Roman road from Ber Street or King Street ran along Oak Street.
• An east-west Roman road ran from the cathedral area and then along St Benedict street.
• The roads may have crossed at Charing cross (?)


Muspole Street
• Possibly part of the Saxon street system
• “Muspool”. A pond used for drinking.
• Interestingly there is a very old water fountain at the Colgate end of the street.
• Another source claimed that Muspool derived from a pool of refuse!

Colgate East
St. George’s Church.
• Notice the ‘Basilica’ design: This was copied from the Roman forum design. Christians avoided the temple design with its association with idolatry.
• Nave built 1459, Chancel 1498, aisles 1505 (north), 1513 (south).
• Probably not the site of a Saxon church.
• This was the Renaissance period of perpendicular churches. They are called “perpendicular” because of the predominance of vertical lines and edges.
• Perpendicular churches were light and airy with big glass windows; perhaps a sign of increasing human technological confidence. In comparison Norman churches are dark and cave like.
• This church would have looked really up to date and modern in its time.
• These churches are evidence of the end of feudalism and the rise of a merchant class who helped subsidise them.
• It was these merchants who were to fall out with the monarchy and they found common cause with the non-conformists.
• Norwich was getting rich on the wool and textile trade and also confident.
• Perpendicular churches are the wool merchants churches. They are very prevalent in Norwich and have all but wiped out the early medieval designs. Their prevalence is a sign of a Norwich grown rich on the textile trade.
• John Crome worshipped here.

Henry Bacon House.
• Houses in this area belonged to wealthy (textile) merchants.
• Henry Bacon, a Worsted merchant, built this house in Colegate in the 16th century. He was Mayor in 1557 and 1566.
• Quote: “As Sheriff in 1548-9 he entertained the Duke of Northumberland at the time of Kett’s Rebellion, putting the Duke’s emblem of a ragged staff above his door. The lintel of the front doorway has a merchant’s mark balanced by the arms of the Grocers’ Company and his mark also appears over a window to the left as well as high up near the south-west angle”.
• The merchant class rising to a place of power and influence in society is a recurring theme in the Wensum valley area.

Norvic Shoe factory.
• A Victorian building.
• In times past shoes would all have been made and bought locally.
• The factory system produced a local surplus. Hence trade became more global and distant economies became linked. This is where the profit makers have taken us: if one economy falls over, it can take all the others with it!
• It is not known why Norwich should become a shoe making centre.
• By 1830, however, the textile industry in Norwich had decayed, but not the shoe industry. This may be because textiles are power intensive whereas shoe making is labour intensive.

Octagon chapel
• Originally the site of a Chapel for the Black friars.
• Dr John Collinges, vicar of St Stephen’s dissented under Charles II in 17th century, and set up the chapel with his Presbyterian followers.
• This is our first location with a link to NCBC in that it has a common ancestor; namely the disaffection with the established Church of England under the subliminally catholic Stuart dynasty of the 1600s
• These Presbyterians built the Octagon in 1756. The architect was Thomas Ivory (architect of the assembly room and many alterations to Blickling hall)
• John Wesley visited in 1757 and admired it. First of its kind in England.
• The Martineaus worshipped here (An influential Huguenot protestants) .
• Presbyterianism is the Scottish version of Congregationalism with a preference toward national centralisation.
• The congregation here had become Unitarian by the early 19th century. Was this connected with the enlightenment?
• Notice the pattern here: dissenters worship in a private house first and then create a building fit for purpose as the congregation expands and becomes more established – we see this pattern today.

Old Meeting House.
• Built in 1693 after the toleration act. The roots of the congregation go much further back to the disaffected Congregationalists who first met in private halls and houses.
• The Baptists that eventually became NCBC came out of the Congregationalists.
• Notice the classical architecture: they were disaffected enough to want to get away from churchy gothic looking buildings. There is irony here: when the early church started building churches they took their model from the Roman secular basilica, the public forum. This was a reaction against the religious temple with its associations with idol worship. Later as the nonconformists integrated with the establishment they started building pseudo gothic churches – see for example Dereham Road Baptist Church.
• Men and women entered the building by different doors. “The arrangement is similar to that of the Unitarian chapel in Ipswich, which began life in almost exactly the same way and is from the same decade.” Congregationalists still meet here and the liberal Jewish community meet here.
• Note: Congregationalism in Norwich goes right back to 1580 when Robert Browne set up a congregation: its chief characteristic is that of a rejection of a centralised church government in favour of local government.

St Clement’s Church:
• St. Clement was the patron saint of sailors. Churches of this dedication are found near the crossing point of rivers.
• It is the site of a Saxon church.
• Largely a perpendicular church with some older parts suggesting it was one of many perpendicular rebuilds. Some of its older parts can be seen; see for example the east end window which from the 1300s decorated period and also the corner stones on the west wall next to the tower showing that the nave was once narrower.

Fye Bridge Street
Fye bridge
• Had a ducking stool that records say was actually used.
• This was one of the first bridges and started as a ford in Saxon times.
• Its vicinity to the important space of Tombland is evidence of the antiquity of the crossing.
• It isn’t true that ‘fye’ minds ‘five’, but it so happens that this is the fifth bridge to be built.



Tombland
Augustine Steward House:
• Augustine Steward (1491-1571) was a common councillor, a sheriff and then later an MP for Norwich.
• During the time of the Kett’s rebellion in 1549, Steward was Deputy Mayor and the rebels ransacked his home but he managed to escape. Merchants tend to side with law and order because that is best for business.
• His merchant’s mark and the arms of Mercers Corporation can still be seen on the building.
• He was another textile money maker.
• Ultimately this merchant class clashed with Stuart King Charles I in parliament over demands for money (Now, that really does upset the merchant class!). This lead to the civil war off 1642 which intimately impinges upon the history of NCBC.
• Inside the building the undercroft has blocked tunnels that lead to the cathedral across the road. The purpose of the tunnels is unknown. (Symbolically undermining King and High church?)

Tombland Alley:
• Follows the line of the east-west Roman road that crossed the north-south Roman road around Charring Cross (?)

St George’s Tombland:
• This is where we pick up the story of NCBC again.
• The Rector of this church, Rev William Bridge (and also of St Peter Hungate) became disaffected with Stuart King Charles I high church.
• He left for the Rotterdam in about 1635 and joined the English Chaplaincy in Holland where he had a freer rein.
• This Chaplaincy ministered to English merchants in the lowlands.
• Once again notice that the merchant wealth makers are figuring in the subversion of King and the established Church.
• Congregational dissent started to brew amongst the English Christians in the Netherlands.
• When the Congregationalists returned to England after the Civil War they asked sympathetic established church ministers to pastor them.
• The first was Rev Henry Amitage in 1647 who was associated with St Michael’s church in Coslany.
• The second was Rev Thomas Allen in1655 who was rector of this church (St. George’s) and St Peter Hungate.
• The early Congregationalists used this church for their services and a gallery (long since gone) was built for increased numbers, but they were thrown out after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.


Cathedral Close
Norwich School
• Originally a free school for poor boys set up by the Benedictine monks in about 1300
Cathedral:
• Notice the basilica design. Notice also the Roman “viaduct” look of tier upon tier.

Elm Hill:
A very dilapidated Elm Hill was up for demolition by the council in the 1920s but it was just saved by one vote by the newly formed Norwich Society.

St Simon and St Jude church
• Goes at least as far back as the Normans. The chancel is from the 'decorated' period and is older than the perpendicular nave. Contains the famous monuments of Sir John Pettus.

Pettus House
• Fifteenth Century Merchants house.
• Original diamond leaded lights on top floor. Has a Georgian shop front.
• Sir John Pettus was knighted by Elizabeth I. Major of Norwich 1608.
• As Pettus got wealthier he moved to an estate at Rackheath. He was aping the aristocracy with their large estates.
• House owned by the Pastons at one point. The Pastons have their roots in the peasantry. Their rise to wealth was contested by noblemen.

Strangers Club
• Started in 1927and intended to have a 50-50 mix of locals and foreigners
• It is now an elite club of professionals. The phenomenon of such clubs goes back to the Free Masons. Once again notice the mercantile connection.
• The house was owned by Augustine Steward who lived here around 1545.
• The club badge is adapted from Stewards coat of arms.
• The Club has entertained dignitaries such as Queen Mary, Princess Alexandra, the Lord Mayor of London, the Netherlands’, Belgian and Mexican Ambassadors, Lord Birkenhead, Lord Baden-Powell, Sir Henry Wood, Sir Alfred Munnings, writers, actors, politicians and overseas visitors to the City who are brought to see the Club Premises.
• Professional gentleman’s clubs were very important in the industrial revolution as the seed bed of new ideas and their dissemination.
• The Mason’s had their roots in the enlightenment and the notion of God as a rational architect.

Britons Arms: The only building on Elm hill to survive the 1507 fire. Medieval doorway. Home to a group of religiously minded women.


St Andrews Area

St Andrews Hall:
• Built in the “Decorated” period: about mid 1300s.
• The most complete friary complex in the country.
• Friars lived to serve the community rather than live the detached lives of the monks. They were popular amongst the people. They depended on gifts of charity.
• They were established in the late 12th Century as a reaction to the wealth and power of the monks and monasteries, which is ironic because monks started out as religious ascetics.
• However they were not exempted from the dissolution.
• After the dissolution Augustine Steward sent a proposal the Henry VIII that the City buy the building from the Crown and this was accepted. This insured the buildings survived.
• Hence from 1540 the city took possession and the building has served as a church, a priory, school granary, workhouse, and mint. It contains the country’s largest selection of civic portraits.

Anchoress/Anchorite cell:
• An ascetic of the Middle ages who lived for prayer and the Eucharist.
• They were bricked up permanently in cells against church walls and sealed by the Bishop in a special ceremony.
• A Squint hole enabled them to hear and receive communion.
• A hole facing the outside world enabled them to receive food and give advice and counsel.
• Maintenance of Anchorites may be provided by wealthy people: whilst the wealthy tried to make their name in this world the anchorite helped make sure their names were also heard in heaven.
• Julian of Norwich who lived in a cell off King Street is world famous for her teaching.
• Many anchorites and Anchoresses in Norwich.

St Peter Hungate
• The second of Rev William Bridge’s churches; the rector who defected to the Rotterdam congregations.

Cloisters, East Granary,
• By 1667 under Daniel Bradford the Baptists had split from the Congregationalists over the issue of child baptism. Bradford is the name of the first minister that appears on the NCBC history of ministers.
• In 1688 the catholic Stuart monarch James II was deposed. Sometime after this date the Baptists under their minster Henry Austine took the lease on what was originally the dormitory over the cloisters of the of the St. Andrews friary.
• However they left the East Granary circa 1720 for a house in Coslany. (There is a plaque on the Granary referring to the Baptist presence)
• These Baptists came out of a melting pot of religious dispute amongst non-conformist protestants.
• Congregationalists heart ached about the loss of the Baptists from their number: “….they have not only forsaken the churches for want of the ordinance of baptism, but also judged all churches no churches that were not of their mind or came not up to their practice” says a congregationalist source.
• There were other divisions amongst the Protestants: ‘Kingdom Now’ Anabaptist extremists even went as far as wanting to overthrown Cromwell’s puritan government in order to help usher in Christ’s rule with His saints.
• There were disputes between Baptists and Quaker “Charismatics”. The latter suggested that the Baptists water baptism was on a par with St John’s baptism and inferior to Christ’s baptism with the Holy Ghost.

• The 17th century was a century of intellectual and political turmoil.
• It was a century that looked for the right balance between leaders and the people, between materialism and spirituality, between science and revelation.
• What should be at the centre of things? Earth or Sun? People or King? Mind or heart? God or man? Or most sinister of all: was there any centre at all?
• The Copernican revolution and what it means was by now well underway and is still ongoing.

St Georges Street
Art College: Now “Norwich University College of the Arts”

Black Friars Bridge: Not an original Saxon bridge.

Colgate West
Duke Street:
• So called because the Duke of Norfolk had a palace here in 1540.
• In former days it was probably only a small lane and Colgate was the main thoroughfare and had priority.

St Michael Coslany Church
• This church figures in NCBC history. In 1647 Rev Armitage of this church was asked to pastor the Congregationalists after they returned from Rotterdam (This was before the NCBC Baptists came out of the Congregationalists).
• When Armitage died in 1655 they moved to St George’s Tombland, and Rev Thomas Allen’s ministry
• St. Michael’s is obviously a perpendicular church. (That is, a church built on wool money)
• The fine flint flushwork has been likened to the inlaid ivory of cabinets.
• The flushwork on the south and east walls of the chancel is a late 19th Century copy.
• The south side is the most decorated face because this is the side that faced what used to be a busy street. Duke Street which cuts off this end of Colgate may only have been a small lane rather than the main thoroughfare it is today.
• St Michael’s is now the Inspire centre whose purpose is “...to promote and encourage the discovery and enjoyment of science by all members of the community using hands-on exhibits and related activities." Very appropriate. The merchants helped subsidize the perpendicular churches, and in the long run their search for profit promoted science as a side effect.
• The conflicts we have talked about resolved in favour of commercialism and nonconformist religious freedom.
• Ultimately this commercialism lead to the industrial revolution and this revolution in turn helped to promote science.
• So at St Michael’s science has come home: Norwich’s glut of perpendicular churches was down to the wealth of the merchants and it was the merchants who ultimately (if a little inadventantly) laid the seed bed of non-conformity, parliament, and science

Old Baptist Meeting House:
• This house was situated somewhere beyond the west end of St Michael’s.
• The Baptists moved here from the East Granary circa 1720.
• The house was extended at one point to accommodate increased numbers, but in 1744 they left for a house situated on the current site of NCBC.

Rosemary Lane:
(Before and after photo)

Thomas Pykerell House
• Built late fifteenth century by Thomas Pykerell.
• A mercer (textiles again!) who was Sheriff in 1513 and Mayor in 1525, 1533 and 1538. He died in 1545 and was buried on the north aisle of St Mary’s Church.
• Quote: In 1860 the building was an inn with the sign of the Recruiting Sergeant, and the yard at the rear was even then known as Pykerell’s Yard. It was later the Rosemary Tavern, but by the 1930s was being considered for demolition under a slum clearance scheme.
• One of the few thatched houses remaining within the city walls.
• It had the characteristic medieval hall layout of an entrance with a hall (then the living space of the house) on one side and private withdrawing rooms attached. On the other side of the entrance were three doorways into the pantry (for bread & associated foods), buttery (for meats and alcohol) and Kitchen (for food preparation).
• The site of the kitchen was probably that now occupied by the Zoar chapel.
• The spandrels over the arch would likely to have contained some sort of heraldry.


Self Link